Posted on 09/22/2009 3:41:15 PM PDT by NYer
WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 21, 2009 (Zenit.org)- Sometimes there are no fireworks. Turning points can pass in silence, almost unobserved.
It may be that way with the "Great Schism," the most serious division in the history of the Church. The end of the schism may come more quickly and more unexpectedly than most imagine.
On Sept. 18, inside Castel Gandolfo, the Pope's summer palace about 30 miles outside Rome, a Russian Orthodox Archbishop named Hilarion Alfeyev, 43 (a scholar, theologian, expert on the liturgy, composer and lover of music), met with Benedict XVI, 82 (also a scholar, theologian, expert on the liturgy and lover of music), for almost two hours, according to informed sources. (There are as yet no "official" sources about this meeting -- the Holy See has still not released an official communiqué about the meeting.)
The silence suggests that what transpired was important -- perhaps so important that the Holy See thinks it isn't yet prudent to reveal publicly what was discussed.
But there are numerous "signs" that the meeting was remarkably harmonious.
If so, this Sept. 18 meeting may have marked a turning point in relations between the "Third Rome" (Moscow) and the "First Rome" (Rome) -- divided since 1054.
Archbishop Hilarion was in Rome for five days last week as the representative of the new Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.
One key person Archbishop Hilarion met with was Cardinal Walter Kasper. On Sept. 17, the cardinal told Vatican Radio that he and Archbishop Hilarion had a "very calm conversation."
Cardinal Kasper also revealed something astonishing: that he had suggested to the archbishop that the Orthodox Churches form some kind of "bishops' conference at the European level" that would constitute a "direct partner of cooperation" in future meetings.
This would be a revolutionary step in the organization of the Orthodox Churches.
Papal-Patriarch encounter?
Cardinal Kasper said a Pope-Patriarch meeting was not on the immediate agenda, and would probably not take place in Moscow or Rome, but in some "neutral" place (Hungary, Austria and Belarus are possibilities).
Archbishop Hilarion himself revealed much about how his Rome visit was proceeding when he met on the evening of Sept. 17 (before his meeting with the Pope) with the Community of Sant'Egidio, an Italian Catholic group known for its work with the poor in Rome.
"We live in a de-Christianized world, in a time that some define -- mistakenly -- as post-Christian," Archbishop Hilarion said. "Contemporary society, with its practical materialism and moral relativism, is a challenge to us all. The future of humanity depends on our response… More than ever before, we Christians must stand together."
A report from Interfax, the news service of the Moscow Patriarchate, on Sept. 18 revealed that Archbishop Hilarion spoke to the Pope about "cooperation between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches in the area of moral values and of culture" -- in particular during the "Days of Russian Spiritual Culture," a type of exhibit with lectures scheduled for spring 2010 in Rome. (One might imagine that the Pope himself could attend such an exhibition).
In memory of the visit, Archbishop Hilarion gave the Pope a pectoral cross, made in workshops of Russian Orthodox Church, the report said, Interfax reported.
Today, an Interfax report supplied details of Hilarion's remarks this morning in the catacombs of St. Callixtus.
"Denied by the world, far from human eyes, deep under ground in caves, the first Roman Christians performed the feat of prayer," Hilarion said. "Their life brought the fruit of holiness and martyr heroism. The Holy Church was built on their blood shed for Christ."
Then the Church came out of the catacombs, but Christian unity was lost, the archbishop said.
Archbishop Hilarion said that human sin is the cause of all divisions, while Christian unity can be restored only in the way of sanctity.
"Each of us, conscientiously fulfilling a task the Church has given him or her, is called to personally contribute to the treasury of Christian sanctity and work to achieve God-commanded Christian unity," the archbishop said.
A second Interfax report today added further information about the meeting with the Pope.
Growing influence
"During a talk with Pope Benedict XVI, Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk pointed out the status of Orthodox believers in Western Ukraine where three Orthodox dioceses had been almost eliminated as a result of coercive actions of Greek Catholics in late 1980s and early 1990s," Interfax reported.
Archbishop Hilarion "stated the need to take practical steps to improve the situation in Western Ukraine," within the territories of Lvov, Ternopol and Invano-Frankovsk Dioceses, the report said.
Meanwhile, in Russia itself, the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, headed by Patriarch Kirill, seems to be growing, though not without opposition.
The rise in Russia of Kirill and his increasing influence in legislative matters seems to be arousing opposition from the "siloviki," forces connected with the old KGB.
In an article in the current issue of Argumenty Nedeli, Andrey Uglanov says that Kirill's extraordinary activity has attracted attention from some who do not like to have their positions questioned, let alone challenged. And that has become Kirill's "big problem."
These "siloviki," Uglanov says, have been offended by Kirill's "anti-Stalinist and anti-Bolshevik actions," including his appearance at the Solovetsky stone in Moscow's Lubyanka Square on the very Day of the Memory of the Victims of Political Repression.
In this context, Hilarion's visit to Rome takes on even more importance.
The Russian Orthodox Church is a power in Russia, but it faces opposition and needs allies.
What is occurring in Hilarion's visit to Rome, then, may have ramifications not only for the overcoming of the "Great Schism," but also for the cultural, religious and political future of Russia, and of Europe as a whole.
It is especially significant, in this context, that Hilarion, Kirill's "Foreign Minister," has some of the same deep interests as Benedict XVI: the liturgy, and music.
"As a 15-year-old boy I first entered the sanctuary of the Lord, the Holy of Holies of the Orthodox Church,” Hilarion once wrote about the Orthodox liturgy. “But it was only after my entrance into the altar that the 'theourgia,' the mystery, and 'feast of faith' began, which continues to this very day.
"After my ordination, I saw my destiny and main calling in serving the Divine Liturgy. Indeed, everything else, such as sermons, pastoral care and theological scholarship were centered around the main focal point of my life -- the liturgy."
Liturgy
These words seem to echo the feelings and experiences of Benedict XVI, who has written that the liturgies of Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday in Bavaria when he was a child were formative for his entire being, and that his writing on the liturgy (one of his books is entitled "Feast of Faith") is the most important to him of all his scholarly endeavors.
"Orthodox divine services are a priceless treasure that we must carefully guard," Hilarion has written. "I have had the opportunity to be present at both Protestant and Catholic services, which were, with rare exceptions, quite disappointing… Since the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, services in some Catholic churches have become little different from Protestant ones."
Again, these words of Hilarion seem to echo Benedict XVI's own concerns. The Pope has made it clear that he wishes to reform the Catholic Church's liturgy, and preserve what was contained in the old liturgy and now risks being lost.
Hilarion has cited the Orthodox St. John of Kronstadt approvingly. St. John of Kronstadt wrote: "The Church and its divine services are an embodiment and realization of everything in Christianity... It is the divine wisdom, accessible to simple, loving hearts."
These words echo words written by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, who often said that the liturgy is a "school" for the simple Christian, imparting the deep truths of the faith even to the unlearned through its prayers, gestures and hymns.
Hilarion in recent years has become known for his musical compositions, especially for Christmas and for Good Friday, celebrating the birth and the Passion of Jesus Christ. These works have been performed in Moscow and in the West, in Rome in March 2007 and in Washington DC in December 2007.
Closer relations between Rome and Moscow, then, could have profound implications also for the cultural and liturgical life of the Church in the West. There could be a renewal of Christian art and culture, as well as of faith.
All of this was at stake in the quiet meeting between Archbishop Hilarion and Benedict XVI on Friday afternoon, in the castle overlooking Lake Albano.
The Catholic Church never left the orthodox faith which it has maintained from the beginning, which cannot be said about the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As for Fatima, it was more directed at Russian Communism whose errors have infected the whole world.
The conversion of Russia is about the error of atheist Communism.
Article quote:
“If so, this Sept. 18 meeting may have marked a turning point in relations between the “Third Rome” (Moscow) and the “First Rome” (Rome) — divided since 1054.”
Technically there has been no schism between the CC and the ROC.
You wrote:
“Cardinal Kasper might do well to remember his place and in the future avoid trying to tell Orthodox hierarchs what they should do.”
Oh, come on, Kolokotronis. It actually is a very good idea. The Eastern episcopal structure is unweildy to say the least when it comes to dealing with modern issues. A conference - even a non-binding one - might be a good idea.
“In the past that has created a less than favorable impression on The Church.”
If your “The Church” can’t handle a suggestion, then you have bigger issues to handle, right? :)
“Perhaps...when it returns to Orthodoxy which the present Pope may well be preparing the Latins for.”
Read Dominus iesus. Pope Benedict was instrumental in writing it. Clearly he believes we are orthodox AND Orthodoxy.
There's nothing "anti-Orthodox" about it; the "errors of Russia" it mentions are the errors of Communism, and "Russia will be converted" means that she will turn away (the literal meaning of "convert") from those errors.
“The Catholic Church never left the orthodox faith which it has maintained from the beginning, which cannot be said about the Patriarchate of Constantinople.”
We disagree at least as to the first part.
“As for Fatima, it was more directed at Russian Communism whose errors have infected the whole world.”
Oh, that’s why between her threats about not being able to restrain her Son’s wrath any more she spoke of the “conversion” of Russia to “her immaculate heart”?
“Oh, come on, Kolokotronis. It actually is a very good idea.”
Cardinal Kaspar is not well thought of; he is not trusted. He, of all the Vaticanistas, should not be making suggestions about how Orthodox bishops should be organizing themselves. His job is to make sure they are organized in submission to the Pope.
“The Eastern episcopal structure is unweildy to say the least when it comes to dealing with modern issues.”
It is? I’ll admit that a synodal system isn’t as “efficient” as an absolute monarchy, but we aren’t interested in that.
But Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople are not.
I respectfully disagree. Mar Nasrallah Peter Cardinal Sfeir is Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. Patriarch Fouad Twal serves as Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. Patriarch Antonios Naguib tends the community at Alexandria.
“Mar Nasrallah Peter Cardinal Sfeir is Patriarch of Antioch and all the East.”
It is merely a title of honor. No one, save perhaps Cardinal Sfeir (and I doubt even he does), believes he is the Patriarch of Antioch. Even the Maronites claim the title only for Maronites and no one else. The fact is he is a cardinal, nothing more (and is due respect as such) and ALL the other particular churches view him as such.
Mar Nasrallah Peter Cardinal Sfeir is the legitimate successor of Patriarch Cyril VI who was duly elected in 1724. The Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, Ignatius IV, is the successor of Sylvester of Antioch, a Greek monk who was imposed upon Antioch by the Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople who declared Ignatius’ election invalid. Of course we must ask by what right did the Patriarch of Constantinople have in interfering with the autocephalous church of Antioch?
“Mar Nasrallah Peter Cardinal Sfeir is the legitimate successor of Patriarch Cyril VI who was duly elected in 1724.”
Um, no. Pat. Cyril VI is the predecessor of the Melkite Patriarch, not the Maronite cardinal. Cyril VI was excommunicated by the EP for being a supporter of the Pope and his claims of universal jurisdiction. In this act the EP was supported by the rest of the Orthodox patriarchs and a new patriarch was appointed who was accepted by the Orthodox Patriarchs. You should try to get your patriarchs straight, P.
BTW, I had dinner just the other night with the niece of the great and holy +Maximos V, of blessed memory. She is a charming lady, who, like many in the late Patriarch’s family, has almost nothing good to say about Rome. Her son is one of my best friends.
My mistake, I was thinking of the Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham of Antioch. As for the excommunication by the Patriarch of Constantinople, whence does he get the authority to excommunicate a validly elected patriarch of another church? How can a patriarch who canonically possesses only local authority over his own church have greater power than the pope who claims universal jurisdiction? Lacking such authority or jurisdiction over Antioch, Cyril VI remained the legitimate Patriarch of Antioch, as do his successor, regardless of the judgment of the other Orthodox patriarchs.
Cyril VI was removed by the EP in concert with the other Orthodox Patriarchs. A recent example of this was the removal of the Patriarch of Jerusalem Ireneos I by the EP on behalf of and in concert with the other Patriarchs in, I think, 2005. It is the authority of the primus to act on behalf of the Patriarchs once they have decided what needs to be done. Of course if its the EP who needs to be removed, that can be done too (and has been).
“... regardless of the judgment of the other Orthodox patriarchs.”
P, I meant to add that NOTHING can happen or continue on in Orthodoxy “regardless of the judgment” of the Patriarchs, or of the Laos tou Theou for that matter.
But whence did the patriarchs get this collective authority? Universal authority in the Church can only be exercised by either the pope or the entire college of bishops. Even if they are in agreement the patriarchs only have authority over their own patriarchies; they have no canonical authority to act as a senate of the Church.
But even by your own logic the validity of the excommunication by Constantinople fails. If the Council of Florence can be rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou in the East then Chalcedon must rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou of Egypt and thus the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria would be the Coptic patriarch. Thus at the time of Cyril VI's excommunication by Jeremias III of Constantinople only two (Constantinople and Jerusalem [and even the legitimacy of Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is questionable]) of the five historical patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem) concurred in the act.
“Universal authority in the Church can only be exercised by either the pope or the entire college of bishops.”
Not so far as we are concerned. Indeed, it is just that opinion, among others, which prevents a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church.
“Even if they are in agreement the patriarchs only have authority over their own patriarchies; they have no canonical authority to act as a senate of the Church.”
Not so far as we are concerned. The Patriarchs can and have acted as a Synod with the EP as primus. The most recent example being the removal of Irenaeus.
“If the Council of Florence can be rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou in the East then Chalcedon must rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou of Egypt and thus the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria would be the Coptic patriarch.”
That doesn’t follow at all, so far as I can see. And By the excommunication of Cyril VI, Rome’s opinion, it being in schism so far as we were concerned, was of no consequence.
This all started with the comment that the Maronite cardinal is the “Patriarch of Antioch”. He is not the Patriarch of Antioch in any traditional sense of the word. He is not the successor of any member of the Pentarchy. He is the Patriarch of Antioch for the Maronites but only for the Maronites. I say this, btw, with the greatest respect and admiration for the personal qualities of +Nasrallah.
I concede this point. As I stated earlier, I had confused him with the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch who is the legitimate successor of the ancient Patriarch of Antioch, the imposition of Sylvester by the Patriarch of Constantinople being uncanonical.
“Universal authority in the Church can only be exercised by either the pope or the entire college of bishops.”
Not so far as we are concerned. Indeed, it is just that opinion, among others, which prevents a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church.
“Even if they are in agreement the patriarchs only have authority over their own patriarchies; they have no canonical authority to act as a senate of the Church.”
Not so far as we are concerned. The Patriarchs can and have acted as a Synod with the EP as primus. The most recent example being the removal of Irenaeus.
Please give an example of the united patriarchs acting as a senate for the universal church prior to the schism. This is a novelty completely against the canons that has no historical precedence in the undivided church.
“If the Council of Florence can be rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou in the East then Chalcedon must rejected because it was not accepted by the Laos tou Theou of Egypt and thus the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria would be the Coptic patriarch.”
That doesn’t follow at all, so far as I can see.
Please explain how the judgment of the Laos tou Theou of the Greeks in rejecting an Ecumenical council has an authority that is not shared by the Laos tou Theou of the Egyptians.
Rome’s opinion, it being in schism so far as we were concerned…
Please show the act by which Rome allegedly went into schism from the universal church.
“As I stated earlier, I had confused him with the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch who is the legitimate successor of the ancient Patriarch of Antioch, the imposition of Sylvester by the Patriarch of Constantinople being uncanonical.”
Well, I would expect a Latin to believe this. Given the de facto (and we will see it de jure soon I believe) reunion of the Melkites in Lebanon with the Orthodox, the point today has very little meaning, so little in fact that it does not prevent intercommunion and common celebration of Pascha down there.
“This is a novelty completely against the canons that has no historical precedence in the undivided church.”
You may be correct though that is precisely the direction the present talks between Rome and the Orthodox hierarchs is heading. It is a not uncommon practice among the Orthodox patriarchs. The point of the discussions is finding an acceptable vehicle for the appropriate exercise of the Petrine office.
“Please explain how the judgment of the Laos tou Theou of the Greeks in rejecting an Ecumenical council has an authority that is not shared by the Laos tou Theou of the Egyptians.”
From an Ecumenical Council standpoint it doesn’t. The consensus of all the Orthodox at Chalcedon was set forth in the canons of the Council. That some Africans disagreed, or better said, appeared to have disagreed (along with some others) doesn’t change what The Church accepted as the consensus and AXIOS of the Laos tou Theou. The same was true at Florence. The West thought the False Union was fine, but the consensus of the Orthodox laity was otherwise.
“Please show the act by which Rome allegedly went into schism from the universal church.”
The easiest example is the adoption of the filioque, but there’s quite a list as you know.
Hopefully this could become a model for similar moves to improve relations between Rome and Constantinople/Moscow.
The point of the discussions is finding an acceptable vehicle for the appropriate exercise of the Petrine office.
And this is the direction that the discussions should go. The question should have always been on the proper exercise of the universal Petrine office within the context of a subsidiarity that respects the local office of the bishops, not as to whether there is indeed a Petrine office.
The consensus of all the Orthodox at Chalcedon was set forth in the canons of the Council. That some Africans disagreed, or better said, appeared to have disagreed (along with some others) doesn’t change what The Church accepted as the consensus and AXIOS of the Laos tou Theou. The same was true at Florence. The West thought the False Union was fine, but the consensus of the Orthodox laity was otherwise.
I do not understand. A consensus was reached by the bishops at Florence but this was negated because the Greek and Russian laity rejected it but the same rejection by the Egyptian laity does not negate Chalcedon. Please explain.
The easiest example [of schism] is the adoption of the filioque, but there’s quite a list as you know.
The proper charge here should be heresy (a matter that is in dispute), not schism. But the local bishop of Constantinople has no jurisdiction or authority to pass judgment on the bishops of the West. This complaint, in accord with ancient practice, should have been brought before a general council. Indeed, the West has always sought to resolve the dispute in a council but it has been the East that has refused this. Thus if there is any schism it must be on the part of the Orthodox bishops who have rejected the authority of the universal college of bishops even without going into the question of communion with the pope.
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.