Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion, head of ecumenical relations for the Russian Orthodox Church, visiting the Vatican May 19, said the "atmosphere of dialogue has improved" between the Vatican and the Russian church.
Posted on 05/19/2010 3:02:28 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- While a meeting between Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and Pope Benedict XVI has not been scheduled, the head of ecumenical relations for the Russian church hinted that the possibility of such a meeting is greater than ever.
Metropolitian Hilarion of Volokolamsk, president of the Moscow Patriarchate's office for external relations, told reporters at the Vatican May 19 that a meeting "is a desire, it is a hope and we must work for it."
He repeated the long-standing position of Russian Orthodox leaders that a pope-patriarch meeting could not be held as long as Catholic-Orthodox tensions remain in Western Ukraine and that the meeting should cap a process of preparing an agreement on common point of faith and on concrete collaboration.
"I think the atmosphere of dialogue has improved and without a doubt relations improve along with the theological dialogue. But I think the theological dialogue still has a long way to go," he said.
"What is important is not the speed of dialogue, but the quality of the results we achieve," said the metropolitan. He was in Rome for a series of events on Russian culture and spirituality sponsored by the Vatican and the Moscow Patriarchate.
"An encounter between a pope and a patriarch should be a historic event, not just because it is the first meeting between the head of the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church but especially because such a meeting must be sign of the intention to move our relations forward, which is why is must be prepared for well," he said.
"I hope there could be an encounter not between just any pope of Rome and patriarch of Moscow, but between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Benedict XVI," Metropolitan Hilarion said.
Pressed on the question, he said, "By mentioning these two concrete people, I tried to indicate somewhat a desired deadline."
He told reporters that most of the Russian Orthodox clergy and faithful have a very favorable opinion of Pope Benedict and particularly appreciate his efforts to promote traditional moral values and to strengthen the Christian culture of Europe.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told reporters later that the Vatican's position was that a meeting between the pope and patriarch could be the best way to begin to settle the tensions and questions that the Russian Orthodox want resolved before a meeting.
In addition, he said, it would be an opportunity "to give witness to an increasingly secularized world that our churches have the same positions on moral questions."
"We hope that this meeting will not be something eschatological" -- dealing with the end of time -- "but that it would take place in our age," the cardinal said.
However, the cardinal, who is 77 and expected to retire in the next few months, said he did not think he would still be working at the Vatican when the meeting finally happens.
Pray for the intercession of St. Hyacinth, that the tensions between the Orthodox and Catholics in the Ukraine may be resolved with Charity, Justice, and Equity.
Pray for the intercession of St. Kirill, that the fires of hatred in Mother Russia may be extinquished by the Flame of Love.
Pray for the miracle of the discovery of the origional icon of Our Lady of Kazan.
Pray for the intercession of Venerable Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres, Our Lady of Good Success, that the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, in union with all the bishops of the world, will consecrate Russia, specifically by name, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pray for the intercession of St. Andrew, that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary may happen shortly.
Mother Russia needs her Mother, and she needs her NOW!!
You wrote:
“...said the “atmosphere of dialogue has improved” between the Vatican and the Russian church.”
I wonder what that means.
Oh, wait:
“He repeated the long-standing position of Russian Orthodox leaders that a pope-patriarch meeting could not be held as long as Catholic-Orthodox tensions remain in Western Ukraine...”
Oh, so the meeting will happen when hell freezes over? I sure hope our prelates don’t sell out the Ukrainian Catholics. They’ve suffered enough at the hands of both the Orthodox (and their Communist overlords from the 20s -90s) and us Latins as well in the past.
Gee, I wonder if some Vatican official is going to come out and make a crack that no meeting will be possible until the Orthodox solve that little problem of three different men claiming to be patriarch of Kiev first!
Keep that Fatima talk and see what happens. I think you guys need to be de-fatimize before any meeting takes place. Russia doesn't need the Mother. They have her. Russia doesn't need to be 'consecrated' to her any more than the Vatican does. I mean, of the all the nerve!
I have a good friend who is Russian Orthodox and we talked about all this yesterday. She said she's heard that the big issues are less theological and more about Church structure, including that the Jesuits answer only to the pope. Any thoughts?
The Vatican today tries to maintain political relations (dialogue) with every country in the world, no matter how evil (Cuba, China, Vietnam etc.) The Russian Orthodox are just one more to dialogue with. "Dialogueing" with them does not legitimize their heresy and schism one bit.
The dogma can never be changed, the heretical and schismatic, "unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives, cannot share in eternal life, and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels", even if they shed their blood for Christ:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Orthodox Mariology is every bit comparable if not superior to western. That doesn't mean the East necessarily believes what allegedly happened at Fatima in 1917 any more than the "dancing dun" supposedly 'witnessed" by 70,000 people.
Russia does not need evangelization or consecration. Russia has been consecrated when it became Christian.
She said she's heard that the big issues are less theological and more about Church structure, including that the Jesuits answer only to the pope. Any thoughts?
It is very much theological. With all due respect, I am wondering how well theologically informed is your friend. The issues are fundamentally dogmatic. They cut right into the latter-day Catholic dogmas of Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, as well as older ones, such as the question of "created" grace, purgatory, and the original sin, just to mention a few. There are also deep ecclesial issues, such as the nature (not the question) of papal primacy, etc.
Some of these issues can be a matter of semantics (i.e. the purgatory) and possibly resolved rather quickly; others go much deeper than that and will most likely go on way past our lifetimes, if they go at all.
+Ignatius stated in 105 AD that the catholic Church is where the bishop is, i.e. where the legitimate successor of an apostle is. The ecclesial tradition and organization has absolutely nothing to do with what makes the Church catholic, your papal historical posturings notwithstanding.
You are living in an altered state of reality.
dancing dun = dancing sun
If this is the calibre of your discussion (making unsubstantiated accusations) then don't bother wasting the bandwidth.
I was just giving you a dose of your own medicine. You don't like it eh?
I posted dogma, and you call it gibberish, then you post one quote from one Saint. You are no different than the Protestants, they get a line from scipture, and intepret it to their favor, you get a line from one saint 1900 years ago and misapply it to your case.
That's not the way doctrine is established and passed on.
Fr. William Jurgens: “… we must stress that a particular patristic text [a particular statement from a father] is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and writers is this: that in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and again, in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of revelation.”
The fathers of the Church are only a definite witness to Tradition when expressing a point held universally and constantly or when expressing something that is in line with defined dogma. Taken individually or even in multiplicity, they can be dead wrong and this is why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of a father of the Church or a handful of fathers; a Catholic goes by the infallible teaching of the Church proclaimed by the popes; and a Catholic assents to the teaching of the fathers of the Church when they are in universal and constant agreement from the beginning and in line with Catholic dogmatic teaching.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold itand teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”‐ Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”,
The Catholic Church recognizes infallibility in no saint, theologian or early Church father. It is only a pope operating with the authority of the Magisterium who is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error on faith or morals. So, when we examine and show how Churchmen have erred on the topics of baptism of desire and blood this is 100% consistent with the teaching of the Church, which has always acknowledged that any Churchman, no matter how great, can make errors, even significant ones.
I was just giving you a dose of your own medicine. You don't like it eh?
I posted dogma, and you call it gibberish, then you post one quote from one Saint. You are no different than the Protestants, they get a line from scipture, and intepret it to their favor, you get a line from one saint 1900 years ago and misapply it to your case.
That's not the way doctrine is established and passed on.
Fr. William Jurgens: “… we must stress that a particular patristic text [a particular statement from a father] is in no instance to be regarded as a ‘proof’of a particular doctrine. Dogmas are not ‘proved’ by patristic statements, but by the infallible teaching instruments of the Church. The value of the Fathers and writers is this: that in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they demonstrate what the Church believes and teaches; and again, in the aggregate [that is, in totality], they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which is itself a vehicle of revelation.”
The fathers of the Church are only a definite witness to Tradition when expressing a point held universally and constantly or when expressing something that is in line with defined dogma. Taken individually or even in multiplicity, they can be dead wrong and this is why Catholics don’t form definite doctrinal conclusions from the teaching of a father of the Church or a handful of fathers; a Catholic goes by the infallible teaching of the Church proclaimed by the popes; and a Catholic assents to the teaching of the fathers of the Church when they are in universal and constant agreement from the beginning and in line with Catholic dogmatic teaching.
Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”
Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold itand teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”‐ Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII
Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”,
The Catholic Church recognizes infallibility in no saint, theologian or early Church father. It is only a pope operating with the authority of the Magisterium who is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching error on faith or morals.
I agree that this is not going to be an overnight achievement. Honestly, it's going to be a multi-generational effort, IMO. But, that the condition of the world has forced us to start talking is not a minor thing. One thing that is nice is that one the ground we are talking amongst ourselves. My friend and I exchange stories and experiences all the time. I was on my way to Mass on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception and she asked what feast and I said, this is one of the bones of contention. At least there's a dialog. oss with ICXC every day.
Hierarchy in the Eastern Churches does not have the same sway as in the Western Church. She may be "well connected" but in the end the hierarchy must get the "axios" (approval) from the "people of God" (in Greek: Laos tou Theou), i.e. the congregation.
Eastern Churches are truly Churches of the hierarchy and the people of God. One cannot do anything without the approval of the other. Unlike the Western Church, the Church of the East has had occasions where the people deposed their bishops.
The idea of "pay, pray and obey" has no sway in the East. So, her connections are meaningless in terms of who calls shots.
In fact the Lateran Council's faux reunion with the West was rejected on the lower clergy and congregational level. The Eastern Church exists on the basis of checks and balances. That is an ecclesial distinction vis-a-vis the West.
she considers papal infallibility less of a theological question than a structural one
She is correct. What is the "theological" basis for it?
But, that the condition of the world has forced us to start talking is not a minor thing
Not really. Actually, the West and the East began talking way back in 1963, when the world conditions were quite different, nothing even close demographically, culturally, morally and spiritually speaking as they are today.
In 1964, one thousand and fifty years after they were issued, the two Churches revoked their mutual anathemas (excommunications) and "committed them to oblivion."
Finally, we stopped calling each other heretics. The Church division became understood as an internal disagreement based on tradition, language, culture and outside influences over the second millennium.
The Pope then visited the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the ecumenical dialogue was started 46 years ago, and lasted on and off ever since.
I was on my way to Mass on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception and she asked what feast and I said, this is one of the bones of contention
It doesn't have to be a bone of contention. from the western, Augustinian understanding of the original sin, Immaculate Conception makes sense and is every bit a necessity. From the Eastern understanding of the Fall make no sense and is certainly not necessary. In fact it is counterproductive.
Part of the confusion stems form the Pauline Epistle to the Romans and his ambiguous and often controversial way of stating things as regards the original sin. Both translations are grammatically correct, leading tot wo different conclusions. So, I would say that both Churches recognize that when it comes to the Immaculate Conception, the belief is specific to the Western tradition, but it is not necessarily wrong. Mo< The issue of Purgatory is similarly one of semantics as well as some further theological work as regards God's grace, where the East and the West divide sharply, and which will be a big sticking point in the future, perhaps even crucial.
etc.
Vatican II speaks in a language that gives "an appearance" of saying something which it does not say, and actual can't say, because the Holy Ghost would not permit it. The dogmatic decree that I posted previously, Pope Eugene IV's, Council of Florence 1441, “Cantate Domino,” is a CLEAR dogmatic decree. Vatican II can't change it. It says:
“all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
That dogma can't be changed by anyone, because God's truth does not change with time.
Now, yes, the Catholic Church has always recognized the validity of all the heretical and schismatic clergy with proper apostolic succession, since the time of the first breakaway group, almost all long disappeared today. The so-called Eastern Orthodox being a later heresy, also has valid clergy and sacraments, however, other than valid baptism ( which even applies to the Protestants) in children below the age of reason, ALL the sacraments are of no efficacy to someone who is outside the Catholic Church because of heresy and schism. The sacraments are real, but the recipient is in a state of sin, in his heresy and schism, (and other sins, like adulterous 3rd marriage, permitted by the Orthodox), therefore, in a manner of speaking, one could say that the very next second, the state of sin returns. This is why Cantate Domino says "only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards".
Who knows how many Eastern Orthodox individuals, accept the popes as the supreme authority, and don't accept the lie that one can be married three times in the Orthodox church, and thus are really Catholics who happen to attend an orthodox church because that's all there is, or, for there own safety. For them, the sacraments have efficacy, as they are "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church".
In short, a dying Catholic can (in an emergency)receive the sacraments of an Eastern Orthodox priest and they have the same efficacy as if he had received them from a Catholic priest. If a heretic receives the same, and is steadfast in his denial of the authority of the pope, and steadfast in all the heresies, and other sins, the sacraments have no efficacy. To be blunt, like giving vitamins to a corpse!
re: The wholeness of the Church is where the Eucharist is and not in Rome. The idea that a pope makes a Church “catholic” is asinine.
That is what I called before "You are living in an altered state of reality".
Saying "The wholeness of the Church is where the Eucharist is", is something that you just made up in your mind. The dogma Cantate Domino that I posted is absolute truth. I can post tons more dogmas like it.
Let me conclude with like a side bar:I have more empathy with the peoples oppressed by communism, than anyone you will ever meet. You see, I too lost my country to communism, and I will never forget, or accept it. I have nothing but empathy with all the oppressed peoples under communism, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhist, Moslem, Jew, or atheist, BUT, I will not lie to them or soften and omit (just another type of lie) the "hard" truths, as other Catholics might do (most out of ignorance of the Faith) in our times. You see, I know the Catholic dogmas, and they are clear, and have always been:
"all those who are outside the Catholic Church...cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire".
I know that it is more important to save your ETERNAL soul, than to be your buddy during your brief stay here on earth.
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.