Milan archdiocese offers parish for Russian Orthodox use

Catholic World News ^ | October 3, 2006

[NYer]

Moscow,

Oct. 03

(CWNews.com)

-

Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi (bio - news) of Milan has agreed to make a church in that city available for use by the Russian Orthodox Church, the Interfax news service reports.

Cardinal Tettamanzi, who is in Moscow this week for visits with Orthodox leaders, made the announcement during a meeting with Patriarch Alexei II.

The Italian cardinal said that the parish church of St. Anthony, in downtown Milan, will be offered for occasional use by the Russian Orthodox community there, until a parish church is turned over permanently to the Orthodox.

[NYer]

You may recall from last year's Conclave, that Tettamanzi was one the 'runner up' to Ratzinger. It should be noted, as well, the Cardinal's comments:

---

MOSCOW. Oct 2 (Interfax) - Milan's Catholic Archbishop Dionigi Cardinal Tettamanzi has expressed regret for the Roman Catholic Church's excessive missionary activity in Russia, saying the activity may have been insulting to the Russian Orthodox Church. Cardinal Tettamazi said some Western Christians, including Catholics, failed to either discern or recognize the incomparable spiritual richness of Holy Russia, or to respect and evaluate the religious and cultural heritage of the great Orthodox tradition, speaking at a meeting with Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexiy II in the St. Danilov Monastery in Moscow on Monday. Beginning with the 1990s, religious and missionary activity in Eastern Europe multiplied on the private initiative of various persons from the West. But this initiative, does not always appear correct from the ecumenist viewpoint, he said. Proselytism is currently condemned by many Orthodox and Catholics, he added.

[Petrosius]

Are there any plans for the Patriarch of Moscow to reciprocate in a gesture of good will and provide a church for the use of Catholics?

[NYer]

Are there any plans for the Patriarch of Moscow to reciprocate in a gesture of good will and provide a church for the use of Catholics?

Good question! Let's ask. Pinging the Orthodox!

[Kolokotronis]

"Are there any plans for the Patriarch of Moscow to reciprocate in a gesture of good will and provide a church for the use of Catholics?"

Probably right around the time hell freezes over, given the recent dust up in Belgrade (but I could be wrong)! :)

[MarMema]

Milan is that part of Italy where they are close to the Russian Patriarch, do you recall? From a thread many years ago?

[Petrosius]

I do not know how Belgrade should make a difference. It seems to me that that flap was an inter Orthodox dispute between the Constantinople and Moscow.

Although I would like there to be an ecumenical council called for next Thursday that would resolve all the theological disputes and declare union, I do not think that such a council would be generally accepted by all sides; there is just too much hostility. Rather, I think that it would be wiser for us to put the theological issues on hold for now and just get used to living as one Church. With a generation that is comfortable with truly accepting each other as brothers then the theological talks would bear more fruit, without the suspicion that agreement must mean compromise of the faith. This is why I think that the gesture in Milan is actually more important for the moment than the talks in Belgrade.

[kawaii]

In fairness there's a fair amount of Catholic churches in Russia, at least in the major population centers.

Some really amazing architecturally as well.

Sadly this summer homosexuals attempted to disgrace one in St Pete. :(

[kawaii]

I didn't get the impression the MP was upset over belgrade. Alexy was still very pro Catholic coordination afterwards.

I think the relationship that suffered from Belgrade was the MP=EP relationship and not so much the MP Rome relationship.

[kawaii]

It either provided a venue where the existing dispute was more obvious or one where the MP could MAKE it obvious.

Frankly though this was in the works beforehand.

We could be heading for a 1054 like scenerio with years of unoficial separation and a final schism.

[kosta50]

My dear Petrosius, giving something and expecting something in return is not true love. Cardinal Tettamanzi's act is an act of giving in the spirit of true love. True love gives unconditionally, and unfairly, even to those who do not deserve. True love is always a gift; it is never bought.

When you give charity, do you ask for something in return?

[kosta50]

I think that it would be wiser for us to put the theological issues on hold for now and just get used to living as one Church. With a generation that is comfortable with truly accepting each other as brothers then the theological talks would bear more fruit, without the suspicion that agreement must mean compromise of the faith

That is a very wise statement. Being comfortable with each other, and cognizant of our theological differences, is the first step. When we no longer see each other as threat or challenge, we won't look for a defeat but for a solution.

I think it is very important for the Orthodox side to see that the Catholic Church is reaching out for the Holy Tradition, as we do, to bring Herself back on track, following some derailments post Vatican II.

[Kolokotronis]

"I do not know how Belgrade should make a difference. It seems to me that that flap was an inter Orthodox dispute between the Constantinople and Moscow"

I am very suspicious of the whole Belgrade thing. +Kasper as the Pope's man and +John as the EP's man had to know what the MP's position would be on that paper on ecclesiology. On the other hand, the MP's man pointed out that the Church of Russia was a minority of 2 in an actual or anticipated vote on the question which makes me wonder if the paper really said what the Russian side would have us believe it said. If it did, I find it hard to believe that all the Orthodox Churches represented at the meeting agreed with a clearly non-Orthodox position but that's what Moscow's objection implies. The present EP certainly has shown pretentions of being an "Eastern Pope" in the past and Moscow has been trumpeting the "Third Rome" idea since 1453. But those two Patriarchates have been less than friendly for centuries. We even had a short lived schism in the 90s. Constantinople has clearly been closer to Rome than Moscow for the past 40 years and pushing a Roman ecclesiology to the Orthodox and getting them to buy into it is clearly in Rome's at least short term interest. So...depending on what the game is, the Belgrade dust up could be very important all the way around and not just an intra Orthodox matter as +Kasper would have us believe. P, the only things I know about the Pope are what I read and I like what I read. I do know Black Bart of Istanbul rather substantially better. He is someone to be careful of, though his synod these days is improving with the membership of American metropolitans. I know less about the MP, but enough to have given him and his crowd a wide birth a few years back when they came fishing in the troubled waters of the GOA under Spyridon. My old great grandmother always said to stay away from hierarchs and never take what they say at face value.

"Rather, I think that it would be wiser for us to put the theological issues on hold for now and just get used to living as one Church. With a generation that is comfortable with truly accepting each other as brothers then the theological talks would bear more fruit, without the suspicion that agreement must mean compromise of the faith."

As Kosta said, this is wise. Acting as one Church as a practical matter in our interactions with the world, along the lines of what the MP has been talking about even if we do not intercommune is not only a good idea, its a vital idea. That sort of cooperation isn't just a sort of theological circle time singing kumbaya, but rather a very real necessity given what Christendom faces both from Mohammedanism and the secularists.

"This is why I think that the gesture in Milan is actually more important for the moment than the talks in Belgrade."

Well, no matter what, it was a nice thing to do, especially coupled with the Cardinal's comments when he made the gift.

[Petrosius]

But this more than about the need for churches. A Catholic church sponsored by the Patriarch of Moscow would carry a symbolic significance that the other Catholic churches do not. This goes back to the pre-schism practice of Rome and Constantinople providing monasteries for each other in their respective cities as a sign of the unity of the Church. Remember that the schism actually started when Patriarch Michael Caerularius closed the Latin churches in Constantinople. Perhaps a first step could be to open up each others churches with official sponsorship as was done in Milan. To quote Bishop Mark of Yegoryevsk, vice-chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations at the dedication of the cupola and cross the St. Catherine's Russian Orthodox Church now being built in Rome:

The Russian church stands near St. Peter’s, and this symbolizes the common witness of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches before the challenges of our time, as our Churches through their temples in the Eternal City assert the eternal values of Christianity.

[Kolokotronis]

"To quote Bishop Mark of Yegoryevsk, vice-chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations at the dedication of the cupola and cross the St. Catherine's Russian Orthodox Church now being built in Rome:

The Russian church stands near St. Peter’s, and this symbolizes the common witness of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches before the challenges of our time, as our Churches through their temples in the Eternal City assert the eternal values of Christianity."

Now see, this is what we should be hearing on a daily basis from both Orthodoxy and the Latin Church. Good stuff.

[kawaii]

I'd be more anxious to hear this after hearing a lot of announcments resolving differences in canon or at least discussions about it, which we are happily seeing.

It's nice to see great gestures of respect but the meat and potatoes theology concerns me more so.

FWIW it almost seems like so as to not be beaten to the punch by the EP the MP is being as or more vocal in setting up eccumenical dialog and cooperation.

I'm skeptical how missionary work goes though... I mean do they setup a table with an Orthodox priest and a Catholic one; win folks over to accepting Christianity and then ask 'oh now just so we know which of the following statements do you feel more likely?' and then chalk them up as Orthodox or Catholic? :)

That said seeing the two work together to underscore Apostolic church positions on issues and events in Europe will be great.