Pope (Benedict XVI) pledges to end Orthodox Rift

CNN ^ | May 29, 2005 | AP

[kosta50]

BARI, Italy (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI visited the eastern port of Bari on his first papal trip Sunday and pledged to make healing the 1,000-year-old rift with the Orthodox church a "fundamental" commitment of his papacy.

Benedict made the pledge in a city closely tied to the Orthodox church. Bari, on Italy's Adriatic coast, is considered a "bridge" between East and West and is home to the relics of St. Nicholas of Myra, a 4th-Century saint who is one of the most popular in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Benedict referred to Bari as a "land of meeting and dialogue" with the Orthodox in his homily at a Mass that closed a national religious conference. It was his first pilgrimage outside Rome since being elected the 265th leader of the Roman Catholic Church on April 19.

[stormyseas]

It could possibly be middle ground? Saying they are both right, Benedict has said that both are waiting the same thing, christians the messiah for the second time and the Jewish people for the first time. Judaism being theologically correct for the Jews meaning they have right to believe Jesus wasn't their messiah as he didn't fulfill the prophecies for Israel the first time, but came for the gentiles. Upon his second coming he will fulfill prophecy for both...:) I dunno...:)

[Kolokotronis]

"Mt. Athos and most other Greek monasteries -- who are overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of union with Rome as things currently stand."

I wonder what the effect of the current influx of highly educated professionals into monasticism in Greece will have on these attitudes when coupled with the patristic tone and apparent mindset of +Benedict XVI. I was in a nun's monastery in the old country last week, a monastery filled with professional women. They seemed quite enthusiastic about the new pope, believing that there was a chance he could turn around the Church in the West. Truth be told though, there is still that suspicion, even bitterness against the Roman Church that I've always seen there. When I asked one of them about the bitterness, I got the usual stories of what the Romans had done even within five miles of where we sat during the Frankokratia, let alone at Constantinople, but she went on to speak of what she saw as an arrogant dismissal of the theology of The Church by Rome. She said this while speaking very highly of the Pope so her comments seemed directed at the Roman hierarchy and their theologians. She did go on at some length about how the Roman Church "encourages theological speculations which has lead to new heresies" since Vatican II. At the time I thought the remarks about the Roman hierarchy were born as much out of anger at the Greek hierarchy as anything else, but as I think of it now, I suspect it had to do with a perceived "triumphalism" and toleration of dissent on the part of the Roman hierarchy.

Just as an example of how hard any reunion or even discussions might be at the level of the lower clergy and laity, I was asked by a number of people if I were a "Christian" meaning Orthodox or a Roman Catholic!

[Kolokotronis]

Well...as kosta says, making a distinction for these purposes between converts and non-converts probably, no definitely, isn't a good idea. I must tell you that the influx of converts at least in my parish has lead to a sort of renaissance of Orthopraxis among the cradle group. The converts have the benefit of recent catechesis and a true desire to consciously seek out and live the ways of the Faith. You know, many of them went through a gut wrenching time, some losing family relationships when they came into Orthodoxy. In any event, their more strict following of Orthopraxis has, over the years, set an example for the rest of us to emulate and that has quite literally changed my parish. Now it is true that some of them pretend it was their ancestors who died on the walls of Constantinople or who were subjected to the machinations of the Jesuits in Eastern Europe and that is a bit much. I've said before that some of them carry with them an anti-Catholic prejudice which is Western and Protestant and frankly to me disgusting, but that almost always goes away after a while if only because we don't sit around worrying about the Romans any more than you guys sit around worrying about us (actually, given what I read here on FR, maybe you guys do sit around worrying about us).

I think I'd rather say that we find out who our loons are and then let them anathemize to their hearts content if in the end Orthodoxy and Rome come to an agreement. I do like the Monty Python idea!

"the worm of resentment gnawing away in the soul"

You've got to love that line!

[A. Pole]

Yet, I think that the Orthodox Church in general is ill-prepared to engage in the self-examination and reflexion necessary to achieve reconciliation.

How is it related to the issue of Filioque - the actual reason for the schism? Politically correct self-"examination" cannot answer theological questions.

[A. Pole]

The Protestant revolt in 16th century Europe worked hard to suppress the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints in the territories under its control. It was in those parts of Europe that Nicholas evolved from a saint into a jolly old fat fellow who gives gifts to children on December 6. His secularization continued in America as Santa Claus or St. Nick, moved from Myra to the North Pole whence he emerges every year to the joy of the money-grubbing merchant class and of the innocent children, few of whom know of his origins.

"money-grubbing merchant class"? Freemarketeers will lynch you!

[Kolokotronis]

Theofilo:

What exactly, at least in a theological or ecclesiological sense are we to be introspective about? I ask this sincerely and the very fact that I need to ask this question may be all the proof you need to back up your assertion that we Orthodox are ill equipped to be introspective in this area. In theology and ecclesiology, except for the jurisdictional confusion in the diaspora and the recent understanding with the Monophysites, we haven't changed anything since the last Ecumenical Council which purports to be anything beyond disciplinary matters.

[kittymyrib]

The Orthodox have done very well without the Pope for 1000 years. They should resist these overtures for their own preservation.

[Desdemona]

Is the Western Church ready for a major schism?

We've been in a defacto schism for some time. Your point?

[kittymyrib]

The Orthodox have done very well without the Pope for 1000 years. They should resist these overtures for their own preservation.

[A. Pole]

Judaism being theologically correct for the Jews meaning they have right to believe Jesus wasn't their messiah as he didn't fulfill the prophecies for Israel the first time, but came for the gentiles.

This is very tricky. The messiah whose kingdom will be from THIS world and who will sit in the rebuilt Temple is not the same.

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." (Jn:5:43)

But yes, this another christ/messiah will be accepted by the fallen mankind.

[Kolokotronis]

" We've been in a defacto schism for some time. Your point?"

You're right, now that I think of it, but I was thinking of a de jure schism of much larger proportions than what you are currently experiencing. We have a number of groups which have broken away from what the Patriarchs and those bishops in communion with them call canonical Orthodoxy. The Old Calendar Church in Greece and ROCOR spring to mind. They are rather dramatically larger than any of the groups which have broken off from Rome over the past 40 years.

[Desdemona]

They are rather dramatically larger than any of the groups which have broken off from Rome over the past 40 years.

IF you put it that way, the west has been in schism for somewhere around 500 years. And that si definitely not going to be solved anytime soon.

In the last 40, though, the big problem has been lack of spine from the Magisterium. Some of the worst offenders have been corrected, but not all, and we are dealing with a massive problem of ignorance. Freely, anyone who truly knows will admit that. That needs to be corrected before the west, beyond the Vatican level, can truly think in terms of solving a schism that most don't realize even exists let alone knowing why.

[Kolokotronis]

"Freely, anyone who truly knows will admit that. That needs to be corrected before the west, beyond the Vatican level, can truly think in terms of solving a schism that most don't realize even exists let alone knowing why."

There are many of us in Orthodoxy who would agree with that. In fact there is concern among some Orthodox hierarchs that the problems of the Western Church would wreak havoc on Orthodoxy if reunion were to occur before the West gets its house in order. Others suspect that the overtures of the Vatican to Orthodoxy over the past 20 years in fact have been an effort to innoculate the West against any further apostasy by a good dose of socially and theologically conservative Orthodoxy. To an extent I share both those concerns.

Odd that I never even thought of the Protestant Revolution when responding to you.

[Teófilo]

How is it related to the issue of Filioque - the actual reason for the schism? Politically correct self-"examination" cannot answer theological questions.

An interesting question. Frankly, in my lay, take-it-or-leave-it-opinion, I don't think that the filioque issue was the reason for the Schism; it was just a convenient excuse. The real reason why the schism happened was because we no longer saw our image on the mirror of the other. We became foreigners to each other, even though we each knew that in Christ there could be no strangers. The rest is just self-righteous, grandiloquent excuses for this sin, dressed under layers and layers of "theological reasons."

-Theo

[Conservative til I die]

I sincerely doubt that is our position, but do you think your words are those that +Benedict XVI was thinking of?

Maybe he was thinking of the prayers of those Orthodox in Greece who prayed for John Paul II's (or, "the three-horned devil" as some called him) plane to crash on his way to Greece for a pilgrimage a few years back?

The nastiness cuts both ways.

[Conservative til I die]

If fulfilling Jesus' direction and prayer that we should be united means merely kissing the feet of a couple of patriarchs and having meetings in which all of the points of disagreement since the 7th Ecumenical Council are placed upon the table, and every one of them is resolved in favor of the Orthodox view, and this results in the reunification of the sundered halves of Christianity, then it is for the better.

Christ "falling on His sword" fulfilled the New Covenant and saved humanity. The Pope falling on his sword would merely be done to fulfill the pride of mere humans.

It isn't the same thing.

[Kolokotronis]

"Maybe he was thinking of the prayers of those Orthodox in Greece who prayed for John Paul II's (or, "the three-horned devil" as some called him) plane to crash on his way to Greece for a pilgrimage a few years back?

The nastiness cuts both ways."

Indeed it does. We should pray for them since this wrath and anger is destroying their souls.

[Conservative til I die]

According to my nephew and Orthodox convert, he thinks it would be "fun" to see the RCs accept the stricter Orthodox way of fasting, married priests with children and watching the Pope become JUST the Bishop of Rome, Italy, instead of the ENTIRE world. Oh, and changing the way they view just about everything about "original sin". He says the Orthodox will not change "one whit" of their beliefs to "blend" with the Pope since the Orthodox believe they are RIGHT.

Like I said, kiss their feet (i.e., ass) and fall on his sword.

[Conservative til I die]

As a general proposition I think he's right, but you should understand that on some theological issues, in theory a Great Council of the Whole Church might be able to resolve some dogmatic matters. The problem there won't come from the Orthodox side, it will be the Romans. How do they get around infallibly proclaimed Papal dogmas or those of their own none ecumenical councils (well, actually the latter might be doable)?

That's why I think a true reunion cannot really happen. One side is going to have to bend to the breaking point in order for it to happen.

Will the Orthodox accept becoming essentially Eastern Rite Catholics? I hardly think so. And the Catholic Church is not going to all of a sudden go back on the docrtrine of Petrine supremacy or Papal Infallibility.

Both the Orthodox and the Catholic optimists are high if they think either's going to happen in this lifetime.

[Conservative til I die]

Talking about whether the Pope is "first among equals", "leader" or what have you is really just semantics, titles. The meat of the matter is what the Pope being the leader entails. And like you said, there are issues of how proclamations are issued, collegiality, Papal Infallibility, etc. And the Church isn't just going to declare Papal Infallibility null and void, or just some big mistake.