Posted on 02/18/2008 3:59:28 PM PST by NYer
ROME, FEB. 18, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The so-called Ravenna Document is a real breakthrough in Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, says the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
In an interview with Gerard O'Connell for Our Sunday Visitor, Cardinal Walter Kasper explained what made the breakthrough possible, and what's left in the process of achieving full unity.
His comments centered on the concluding document of the Oct. 8-14, 2007, plenary assembly of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, held in Ravenna, Italy.
"We started the dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches as a whole in 1980. The first phase of the dialogue between the 1980s and 90s sought to reaffirm what we have in common: the Eucharist and the other sacraments, episcopacy and priesthood," Cardinal Kasper explained. "Now, we are discussing the canonical and theological consequences; for the first time, we approach the questions: What is the Church? Where is the Church? What are the structures of the Church?
"We came to the concept that the Church is realized on three levels: the local level, that is, the diocese with the bishop; the regional level, that is, the metropolitan or patriarchate; and the universal level. And on every level we have a tension between authority -- bishop, patriarch, and the ‘protos,' Greek for primate, that is, ‘the first of the bishops' -- and the principle of synodality, synodal structures."
Cardinal Kasper explained that at each level, there is a tension between authority and synodality, "which is essential to the nature of the Church -- "ecclesiologically constitutive" -- and that is already an important point on which to have agreement."
But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- ‘taxis' in Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first among them.
"Many problems remain to be resolved, but we have laid a foundation upon which we can build."
A Catholic challenge
Cardinal Kasper clarified that the foundation reached is a challenge also for the Catholic Church.
"Whereas the Orthodox must clarify more deeply the question of ‘primacy, 'protos,' on the universal level, we Catholics have to reflect more clearly on the problem of synodality and conciliarity, especially on the universal level," he said.
The prelate continued: "The Ravenna document is only a first step and a basic statement. It quotes the Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans -- around 100 A.D. -- stating that the community of Rome presides in love. Other early statements concur. When in the first millennium local churches were in difficulty or in distress, they often appealed to Rome. Rome was an instance of appeal, and had therefore already in the first millennium an important role to play.
"The Ravenna document mentions this, but when we in Ravenna spoke in detail about it, it became obvious that there are often different interpretations of the same facts.
"These differences existed partly already in the first millennium. For instance, the doctrine of primacy was much more developed in the West than in the East. Therefore, it is necessary to study the first millennium in detail, in order to come to a common understanding of the Fathers, both the Western and the Eastern ones. I hope we will find a common view of the first millennium."
The pontifical council president clarified that a common view does not mean "a totally unified view."
"There can still be a difference in understanding," he affirmed. "For we have to distinguish between differences that are complementary and those that are contradictory. Complementarity existed already in the first millennium. So we have to look if we can transform our contradictions into new, fruitful complementary positions."
Cardinal Kasper said the atmosphere in Ravenna was "so positive" that he is hoping to reach such a point of agreement with the Orthodox.
"We will not arrive at uniformity, that is not the goal, but we can come to a common view, a common basic understanding; and within this common basic understanding there can be different accents and different emphases. This does not necessarily prevent Church unity. But we must overcome the contradictions of the first millennium."
Moving on
The president of the pontifical council clarified that a consensus on the first millennium is not enough.
"When we have finalized the discussion about the first millennium, then we have to go to the second millennium," he said.
The cardinal clarified that in the second millennium there was "a decisive development not only in the Latin Church, but also in the Eastern Churches, a development which till today continues to give reason for the existing schism."
He explained: "In the first millennium we had five Patriarchates, now we have 15 Patriarchates and some autonomous Churches. In the West we had the development that led to the First Vatican Council -- 1869-70 -- with the definition of the primacy of jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Pope, a development the Orthodox never accepted. Therefore, we have to discuss how to interpret these different developments on the basis of the first millennium. This will not be an easy discussion; on the contrary, it will be very difficult to reach an agreement about the First and the Second Vatican Councils.
"So the next step after the study of the first millennium will be the study of the second millennium, and only when we have finished that discussion will we be able to draw the consequences for the future of our relationship. Only then will the documents be mature enough to be formally submitted to the respective authorities of the Churches."
Asked how long he thinks this process will take, the cardinal answered: "Nobody can know exactly. But I think at least one decade! But we should leave this to God's providence and in his hands. We should only keep in mind that this is not just an intellectual and an academic process, but that we have to involve the whole body of our Churches, thus entailing also an emotional process.
"We are aware that much resentment, prejudice, and misunderstanding continue to persist, and that all kinds of oppositions and obstacles need to be overcome. Such a change of deep-rooted mentalities takes time; you cannot do it from one day to another.
"We need a reception process not only on the level of our hierarchies but also on the level of our faithful. Or to put it in a more spiritual way: Ecumenical rapprochement is not possible without the conversion of hearts. Here everybody has to begin with himself or herself."
A guiding light
In the extensive interview, Cardinal Kasper gave some hints as to how varying concepts of primacy could be reconciled.
"In this context it should be noted that already today we have two forms of exercise of Roman primacy within the Catholic Church," he explained. "We have two Codes of Canon Law: one for the Latin Church, the other for the Eastern Churches which are in full communion with Rome. According to these Codes of Canon Law, primacy is exercised in a different way in the Latin Church and in the Eastern Churches.
"So we do not want to impose the system which today is in the Latin Church on the Orthodox Churches. In the case of the restoration of full communion, a new form of the exercise of the primacy needs to be found for the Orthodox Churches.
"Already the apostolic constitution enforcing the Eastern Code of Canon Law stated that its regulations were valid only in the intermediate term, that is, until full reconciliation with the Eastern Churches not in full communion. Thus, the model of the exercise of primacy we have in the Eastern Catholic Churches is not necessarily the model for the future reconciliation with the Orthodox Churches.
"At this stage, however, it would be premature to speculate on what form the final outcome will take."
Roadblocks
Asked what is the biggest obstacle in moving forward to unity, Cardinal Kasper affirmed that a "'spirit of possessiveness' is a main obstacle, which can also be seen as lack of willingness to 'metanoia,' that is, to conversion. It is also a lack of love, an unwillingness to open oneself to a partner, to learn from and be enriched by the other, and to share with the other.
"This implies purification of memories, to ask for forgiveness and to correct wrong and non-evangelical attitudes of the past. Pope John Paul II often affirmed that there cannot be ecumenism without the conversion of hearts. The same Pope defined the ecumenical dialogue as the sharing of gifts. All this is a spiritual problem and a spiritual task, which can be done only in the power of the Holy Spirit."
It's because of this that spiritual ecumenism is so important, the cardinal said.
"According to the Second Vatican Council spiritual ecumenism is the heart of ecumenism," Cardinal Kasper affirmed. "This means: personal conversion of the heart, sanctification of life, of shared Bible study and above all of prayer. We as weak human beings cannot ‘make' or organize the unity of the Church; unity is a gift of the Spirit. We have to pray for the Spirit to make ours the prayer of Jesus on the eve of his suffering and death 'that all may be one.'
"Spiritual ecumenism is also an ecumenism that is not reduced to academic circles and academic dialogue or to a kind of Church diplomacy. All this is important, but it is too far away from the basis of the Church. In spiritual ecumenism everybody can participate. This is important for the reception of the ecumenical documents, because without reception in the body of the Church they remain just pieces of paper."
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church".
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
But this extends only from a primacy of honor, not of authority.
They should have mentioned that to avoid misunderstandings.
“”Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”.”
I certainly hope that that isn’t what the Cardinal thinks the Orthodox theologians agreed to. +Kasper is a perceptive man and understands, I suspect, that the “Thou art Peter” line was way over played during the first 1000 years of the Church. Simply being the see of the Empire’s original capital was enough for primacy to be granted to Rome by the Council. Orthodoxy doesn’t dispute that. The Synodal nature of The Church implies a protos and the exercise of that primacy implies, indeed requires, some sort of authority, if only that born of respect. Looking for more than that is like praying for a son-in-law with two eyes.
Please clarify.
“But this extends only from a primacy of honor, not of authority.
Please clarify.”
There are really any of a number of ways of looking at the issue of primacy of honor. What it does NOT mean is that the protos is the dictator of The Church, it does NOT mean the protos is the Vicar (or viceroy) of Christ on Earth. It DOES mean that in a council of the hierarchs of The Church, the protos is the “first”, the one who “presides” by reason of his “presvya”. That position as presider, as I said, necessarily implies some degree of authority but it is an authority to be exercised within the council or synod of the hierarchs, never independent of that synod insofar as the entire Church is concerned and only for the benefit of the proper operation and “orthodoxy” of the universal Church. It means that outside of synodal action, the one who holds the “primacy of honor” has absolutely no immediate local jurisdiction over anything outside his own particular church.
The representatives of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, made a declaration as follows: — —"The aggressions committed by Dioscorus, lately bishop of the great city Alexandria, in violation of canonical order and the constitution of the church, have been clearly proved by the investigations at the former meeting, and the proceedings of to-day. For, not to mention the mass of his offenses, he did, on his own authority, uncanonically admit to communion his partisan Eutyches, after having been canonically deprived by his own bishop, namely, our sainted father and archbishop Flavian; and this before he sat in council with the other bishops at Ephesus. To them, indeed, the holy see granted pardon for the transactions of which they were not the deliberate authors, and they have hitherto continued obedient to the most holy archbishop Leo, and the body of the holy and universal synod; on which account he also admitted them into communion with him, as being his fellows in faith. Whereas Dioscorus has continued to maintain a haughty carriage, on account of those very circumstances over which he ought to have bewailed, and humbled himself to the earth. Moreover, he did not even allow the epistle to be read which the blessed pope Leo had addressed to Flavian, of holy memory; and that too, notwithstanding he was repeatedly exhorted thereto by the bearers, and had promised with an oath to that effect. The result of the epistle not being rend, has been to fill the most holy churches throughout the world with scandals and mischief. Notwithstanding, however, such presumption, it was our purpose to deal mercifully with him as regards his past impiety, as we had done with the other bishops, although they had not held an equal judicial authority with him. But inasmuch as he has, by his subsequent conduct, overshot his former iniquity, and has presumed to pronounce excommunication against Leo, the most holy and religious archbishop of great Rome; since, moreover, on the presentation of a paper full of grievous charges against him to the holy and great synod, he refused to appear, though once, twice, and thrice canonically summoned by the bishops, pricked no doubt by his own conscience; and since he has unlawfully given reception to those who had been duly deposed by different synods; he has thus, by variously trampling upon the laws of the church, given his own verdict against himself. Wherefore Leo, the most blessed and holy archbishop of the great and elder Rome, has, by the agency of ourselves and the present synod, in conjunction with the thrice-blessed and all honored Peter, who is the rock and basis of the Catholic church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, deprived him of the episcopal dignity, and severed him from every priestly function. Accordingly, this holy and great synod decrees the provisions of the canons on the aforesaid Dioscorus."
After the ratification of this proceeding by Anatolius and Maximus, and by the other bishops, with the exception of those who had been deposed together with Dioscorus by the senate, a relation of the matter was addressed to Marcian [the emperor] by the synod, and the instrument of deposition was transmitted to Dioscorus, to the following effect: "On account of contempt of the sacred canons, and thy contumacy regarding this holy and universal synod, inasmuch as, in addition to the other offences of which thou hast been convicted, thou didst not appear, even when summoned the third time by this great and holy synod, according to the sacred canons, in order to reply to the charges made against thee; know then that thou hast been deposed from thy bishoprick, on the thirteenth day of this present month, October, by the holy and universal synod, and deprived of all ecclesiastical rank."
Flame away, oh bearded ones!
There has to be on our side a healthy counterweight to the ultramontanism that would say, for instance, that the Pope has the moral authority to scrap a liturgy in place for 1500+ years and replace it with an on-the-spot production. I think the idea that "the Pope can do whatever he wants because he's the Pope" is rather naive. The Pope (and I think Benedict knows this) is as much a servant of Catholic tradition as we all are. If we are to make any progress ecumenically, it *has* to be by proving that the protos is not a dictator but a person who presides with real authority but in love.
On the other hand..and I'm just thinking through this so perhaps you can enlighten me...how is that kind of ecclesiastical heavy-handedness any different from the New Calendar reform and the changes made to the Russian liturgy back when? And as I recall, Constantinople once upon a time foisted its own liturgy on the Syrians and Copts.
You wrote:
“In my experience, too many of the Orthodox laypeople are too hate-filled to let this happen.”
Sadly, I think you might be right.
Supposing that were true, what is the proper response? Give up? Throw up our hands?
Or redouble our charity and go even further out of our way on their behalf?
We don’t have an option here friends. And if we’re going to sit around and blame hatred on the other side for the schism instead of looking at what we individually and corporately can do to improve it, then get ready for another frosty 1000 years...if Christ in His Mercy grants us that long before coming down and straightening us out Himself.
I’m not blaming anyone. I am simply seeing things as I really believe they are. I am not recommending giving up. Don’t take our realism as a sign of giving up.
M’ok. Thanks for clarifying.
ROME, FEB. 19, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The ice is melting in relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, and there is good will for cooperation, says the president of the Pontifical Council for Promotion Christian Unity.
In an interview with Gerard O'Connell for Our Sunday Visitor, Cardinal Walter Kasper said relations with the Russian Orthodox Church are much better than when he began as president of that Vatican dicastery. And he discussed what lies ahead on the path toward unity.
"Very soon after I was appointed as president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity [March 2001], the four Catholic dioceses in Russia were established, and this caused a profound crisis with the Russian Orthodox Church," Cardinal Kasper explained. "In the meantime the situation has improved; it’s no longer ice, the ice is melting.
"We are of the opinion that a personal encounter between the Pope and Patriarch Alexy II would be very helpful for the further development of our relations. The Moscow Patriarchate has never in principle excluded such an encounter, but it claims that some problems have to be resolved beforehand, i.e., the problem of what they call proselytism and uniatism.
"We are working to solve these problems and we hope we are able to do so even though there are different approaches and concerns. At this moment the Moscow Patriarchate is interested in cooperating on the questions relating to the Christian roots and values of Europe."
Blocks
The two questions of "proselytism" and "uniatism" are the two main issues blocking a possible meeting between the Pope and the patriarch, the cardinal affirmed.
"We have explained several times what we mean and what we do not mean with regard to these two problems. In particular, we have explained that the Catholic Church too does not accept proselytism," the cardinal said. "But the problem is that we have a different understanding of this term."
Cardinal Kasper clarified: "This problem is linked with the Russian Orthodox understanding of their canonical territory. The Catholic Church recognizes that Russia has a longstanding Christian tradition and culture. We recognize all the sacraments, the episcopate and the priesthood of the Russian Orthodox Church.
"Thus, while Catholic Christians living in Russia may clearly give witness of their Catholic faith, there cannot be an evangelization as such, as this can only be undertaken in a pagan context. Therefore, it is not our policy or strategy to convert the Orthodox to the Catholic Church. […] We do not undertake missionary work in Russia as we do in the pagan regions of the world. We want to collaborate with the Russian Orthodox in missionary work and in evangelization, which is needed in modern Russia after more then 70 years of atheistic propaganda and education."
Solving problems
But despite work to clarify the terms, Cardinal Kasper said he has the "impression that doubts still remain, because I feel they think that there is a discrepancy between what we are saying and what we are doing."
"For this reason, two or three years ago, I was very active in setting up a joint commission to investigate complaints," the pontifical council president stated. "If a complaint is valid, then we have to change; but if it is not correct, then the given complaint should be retracted. This commission works well and could solve some concrete problems.
"When I was in Kiev only one week ago I had the impression that now, thanks to God, something is moving and the situation is slowly improving also between the Orthodox under Moscow and the Greek Catholics, even though relations -- by virtue of historical reasons -- are still difficult.
"I had a very friendly meeting with Metropolitan Vladimir. We were able to inaugurate St. Clement Ecumenical Center with the blessing of Metropolitan Vladimir from the Russian Orthodox Church, of Cardinal Lubomyr Husar from the Greek Catholic Church, and of Cardinal Marian Jarworski from the Latin Catholic Church.
"This accord is in itself a little miracle. This center is still a small plant, but it is set to grow. I hope it will become a common reference and meeting point, a place of dialogue and communication between the Churches."
Still, the cardinal confirmed, the problem of uniatism still remains.
"We say that 'uniatism,' understood as a method, today and in the future, is no longer a means of achieving Church unity," Cardinal Kasper said. "But the so-called uniate Churches, which emerged in the past under circumstances very different from today, are a historical reality and have a right to exist.
"But they must open themselves to ecumenical relations with the Orthodox mother Churches. As I see it, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is ready to do so, and has a good ecumenical program in the academy of Leopoli. Finally, we agreed that both sides should recognize the religious freedom of individual Christians who by reason of their conscience want to join another Church."
Going forward
Cardinal Kasper agreed that there is still debate over alleged Catholic proselytism in what the Russian Orthodox consider their canonical territory.
There was even, he said, a statement made by Metropolitan Kirill regarding a wish that Benedict XVI would abolish the four dioceses established by John Paul II, a statement Cardinal Kasper called "very surprising."
"But," the cardinal said, "during [the metropolitan's] recent visit in Rome he did not mention this point. I think it must be clear also to him that the Holy See cannot and will not step back.
"It is hard to see a qualitative difference between our Catholic dioceses in Russia and the Russian Orthodox dioceses in the West. The Russian Orthodox Church should therefore look at nurturing the same openness that we offer to Russian Orthodox Christians and to their parishes and dioceses here in Western Europe and in America."
In any case, Cardinal Kasper said, "I am convinced the dialogue will now go on. Each Church has to face the reality that there is no realistic and responsible alternative to dialogue in today’s world. Faced with the challenge of secularization, Christians have to stand together and give common witness of their faith and of Christian values."
"Patriarch Alexy II has expressed several times his high esteem for Benedict XVI, as a theologian with a profound understanding of the Church Fathers and as a Pope who stands for conservative values, conservative understood in the positive meaning of the term," the cardinal affirmed. "Letters and greetings are regularly exchanged between them, and both are committed to improving relations."
The Serb-hating bigots are projecting again, I see.
That is just plaine- stupid. Speaking as a ordinary Orthodox Christian:
1.Orthodox christians want tu unite with Catholics, modalities of unification are to be discussed.
2. Trust between Vatican and Orthodox nations must be established. e.i. Vatican (as a state) must be on same side as most of Orthodox Christians.
3. One thing, and major one Catholic paeople must understand-
Orthodoxy is not a religion- Orthodoxy is a culture and way of life... In short imagine Vatican not being catholic... or Imagine Vatican streaching from belgrade to Vladivostok and fron polar cap to Black sea....
First, we must build thrust.
Speaking for all Orthodox Christians, all eyes are on Pope an his mouve on Kosovo. How vatican plays that card right- there will be united Christianity. If Vatican fails....Forget about Ecumenism in next 500 years...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.