Pope Again Reaches Out to Orthodox Church

Herald Tribune ^ | June 30, 2003

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY Pope John Paul II again reached out to the Orthodox Church on Sunday, saying his efforts at reconciliation weren't just "ecclesiastic courtesy" but a sign of his profound desire to unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

John Paul made the comments during his regular appearance to pilgrims and tourists in St. Peter's Square. Later Sunday, he welcomed a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople at a traditional Mass marking the feast day of St. Peter and St. Paul.

"The exchange of delegations between Rome and Constantinople, for the respective patron feasts, goes beyond just an act of ecclesiastic courtesy," the pontiff said. "It reflects the profound and rooted intention to re-establish the full communion between East and West."

John Paul has made improving relations with the Orthodox Church a hallmark of his nearly 25-year papacy, visiting several mostly Orthodox countries and expressing regret for the wrongs committed by the Catholic Church against Orthodox Christians.

Despite his efforts at healing the 1,000-year-old schism, he hasn't yet visited Russia because of objections from the Russian Orthodox Church.

During the Mass on Sunday, 42 new archbishops received the pallium, a band of white wool decorated with black crosses that symbolizes their bond with the Vatican. Two of the archbishops received the pallium in their home parishes; the rest took part in the Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.

[MarMema]

He has not addressed your arguments because we are not legalistic. We are, instead, experiental.

What keeps us clinging to our church and each other so stubbornly is not a book or doctrine or even Holy Scripture, but the unity we experience with one another, the love we share, and the inner knowledge of our truth as a family.

[Aquinasfan]

"O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key.  Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key , placed by you in the churches, shall open it." 

John Cassian (c. 362-435)
Book III, Chap 12
Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation

[Hermann the Cherusker]

prior to the definitive Orthodox schism from the Church in the eleventh century

Pat, I would be extremely cautious in using such terminology.

The mutual anathemas of 1054 affected only the Ecumenical Patriach and the deceased Roman Pontiff. The entire Greek Church was not excommunicated by the Pope.

In fact, I would posit that there was no formal schism at that time. As far as mutual communion went, most of the Easterners and most of the Westerners went merrily on their way as if nothing had happened effecting them until after the 4th crusade in the 13th century. It is then that we begin to see apologetic efforts, such as St. Thomas Aquinas' "Contra Errores Graecorum", and reunion efforts such as the various bulls on Church discipline in the east laid down by Innocent IV, and the Second Council of Lyons, as well as the start of the Greek attacks on Latin practices. Even then, nothing was finalized. The Russian Church certainly continued merrily on its way well into the 14th and 15th century with few cares about this mutual anathematization. The Metropolitan of Kyiv attended the Council of Constance in 1418, for example. The split in Russia only became finalized with the Tsar's forcible renunciation of the Florentine Union, and the subsequent persecutions of the Ukranian, Belorussian, and Russian dioceses reconciled in 1596 by the Union of Brest. Read more about Ukraine's pilgrimage here.

For example, we Catholics recognize St. Gregory Palamas, Bishop of Thessaloniki as a saint, although he died in 1359. As proof of this, the Catholic Church allows the Melkite Greek Catholics to name Churches after him. He is commemorated on the Second Sunday of Great Lent. Nor is he the only "post-anathema" Greek saint. Perusing the site listed above, there is St. Gregory the Sinaite, St. Abraham of Smolensk (August 21), St. Abraham of Rostov (October 29), just to name a few. St. Simeon of Thessaloniki is quoted favorably in the Catechism as a Saint, although he died after 1054.

My understanding of the situation is this. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the Orthodox heirarchy as lawful Bishops; it does not name titular Bishops to their sees, as with the vacant sees of Anatolia and N. Africa. Because none of the Orthodox have ever been denounced by name, they are only outside of our Church insofar as they themselves wish to be by being carried away with hatred towards Rome. If any of them holds to the Primacy of Rome, which is the only true point of contention, they are a Catholic, since they hold the Catholic Faith, uphold the one head, and have the true sacraments; and we certainly recognize the legitamcy of Catholics approaching valid Priests of the Orthodox for the Sacraments, regardless of the status of those priests. Canon Law recognizes that it is not the fault of the faithful that they are marooned among haters of Rome. This is recognized explicitly in the various Unions in Ukraine, Romania, Syria, etc. - only the heirarchy is made to make any renunciations. The faithful are given the option of a negative renunciation - if they do not wish to remain Catholic, they may leave their parishes that have reunited with Rome. The schism remains a personal schism between the Roman heirarchy clergy and the eastern heriarchy and clergy.

[Aquinasfan]

He has not addressed your arguments because we are not legalistic. We are, instead, experiental.

This isn't legalism, this is God's Word! Do not treat it with indifference.

Revelation 3:16

So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Rationalism versus mysticism is one thing. Intellectual suicide is another.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Did you miss the persecution and massacre of the Latin community in Constantinople in 1050-1054? The persecution unto death of the Unia' by the Orthodox Heirarchy and Tsar-State in the 1700's and 1800's? The imprisonment in gulags of Catholics by both Tsar and KGB? This is the way of Christ Jesus in your faith? To kill your brother Russians who wished peaceful union with the Pope of Old Rome? The Pope of Rome excommunicated the evil 4th Crusaders with solemn anathema when they raped and pillaged Dalmatia and Byzantium. You uphold the murderers of St. Josaphat the Bishop as Wonderful Servants-of-God.

Are you telling us the Wonderworker St. Seraphim of Sarov would have murdered his brother Christian Russians and filled his soul with lust for their blood to drip through his hands becauee they wished for peace between the Churches? God forbid the very thought brother!

Search your liturgy. It tells you that the Pope of Rome holds the Primacy. That it was our Holy Father in Faith St. Sylvester, Pope of Old Rome, who called the Council of Nicea and presided over it by his legates.

And you, MarMema! How dare you tell RussianConservative "Molodyetz" for this evil in posts 25 and 27! Shame! Shame! The Catholic Church has never persecuted the Russians. Name me an Orthodox Martyr made by the Catholics killing him for attempting to fulfill his office, as the Orthodox did to St. Josaphat!

[Hermann the Cherusker]

We can just be friends across the lines of different churches.

No we cannot. Christ Jesus did not say "I will found my churches". We can be friends, but only where the friendship is tied together under the unity Christ Jesus wished us to have. Without this, the bitterness of hatred displayed by certain persons on this thread will poison the faith of Christ among you, because we abide not together in love. Christ never taught us "Abide in my hatred".

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"Better the turban of the Sultan, than the tiara of the Pope"

Your and Lukas Notaras' prayer has already been answered. Look how the Christian faithful are thriving in Constantinople, In Anatolia, in Old Armenia, in Assyria, in Palestine! Yes, all 10,000 or so of them are carrying along strongly among the 100,000,000 people living there.

Keep up the good work! You may yet end the schism through these prayers by the total destruction of the Orthodox Church, as has already happened in those countries. There is no longer any schism in Anatolia. Of course, there are not longer any Christians there either. but at least their apostate descendants did not sully their purity by stooping to union with Rome rather than Mecca.

God certainly blesses those who love Him, does he not. Such love there must have been among Lukas and his companions!

[B-Chan]

We will never submit to dictator...

Excuse me, but isn't submission supposed to be the hallmark of the Christian faith? Prideful insistence on self-determination is what got the human race into the mess it's in today.

Non serviam is Lucifer's motto, not Mary's. Let's emulate Our Lady and say "Be it done unto me according to thy word".

Yours in Christian fraternity,

[al_c]

Wow! That's one heckuva post, Patrick. Would you mind posting War and Peace while your at it? ;o)

[RussianConservative]

Paper delivered on 7 October 2002 at the University of St Thomas (St Paul, Minessota, USA), and repeated on 9 October 2002 at the Catholic University of America (Washington D.C).

In this paper I shall first of all outline the history of the relations between the two major Christian Traditions. Then I shall look more specifically at the theological dialogue that has taken place between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches throughout the last two decades of the 20th century. Relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church will also be discussed, with special reference to the recent developments. Finally, I will share my vision for the future of Catholic-Orthodox relations in the 21st century.

An outline of the history of Catholic-Orthodox relations

The history of the relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has for the most part been one of mistakes, betrayals, lies, suspicions, disappointments and disillusionments.

The division between Eastern and Western Christianity which took place in the 11th century was in itself the result of a long development of alienation between these two traditions.

When one looks at the history of the Early Church, one is struck by the fact that Latin Christianity was markedly different from its Greek counterpart almost from the very beginning. Differences are evident both at the dogmatic and ecclesiological levels. The Trinitarian theology of Latin Christian authors, such as Tertullian and Augustine, differed significantly from that of the Greeks, e.g. Origen and the Cappadocians: over the centuries the divergence became more and more acute, leading to the long and still unresolved Trinitarian dispute around the question of the Filioque.

Ecclesiological presuppositions were also dissimilar. If in the East, a system of Patriarchates gradually developed, where each head of a local Church was regarded as equal to the others, in the West the central role of the Bishop of Rome was stressed with ever increasing insistence. While the Easterners regarded the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares, i.e. the first among the five equal great Patriarchs (the so-called 'Pentarchy'), he himself was rather inclined to regard his primacy as that of jurisdiction over the other four. At several Ecumenical Councils this difference was manifested in the behaviour of the Papal legates: while their interventions were regarded by the Easterners as contributions to discussions leading to conciliar decisions, the legates thought that it was their right to pronounce the final word. The Pope would normally express approval or disapproval of the decisions of the Councils, while the Councils themselves did not deem it necessary.

Political developments in East and West also contributed to growing differences in the ecclesiological visions of the two traditions. In the Byzantine East, the figure of the Emperor was central: it was he who convened the Councils, who gave approval to various decisions regarding church life, who in many cases appointed and dismissed patriarchs and bishops. The ideal of 'symphony' between Church and state was developed against this background. In practice this most often led to a direct interference of the state into church affairs. No central ecclesiastical figure emerged in the Byzantine East during the first millennium, even though the Patriarch of Constantinople received the title of 'Ecumenical'. Western developments were altogether different. For many centuries Western Europe was disunited and divided into many small and fragile kingdoms. In the absence of a strong centralized civil authority, the Papacy gradually became the strongest unifying factor. Hence the role of the Pope not only as the head of the Western Church, but also as a powerful political figure, a head of state, a mighty magnate, a land- and slave-owner.

The West was separated from the East not only by political and theological factors: there was also an apparent cultural difference, conditioned to a significant degree by the use of Latin in the West and Greek in the East. Different cultural contexts contributed to differences in theological approaches, and vice versa. When reading Byzantine polemical treatises against the Latins or Latin diatribes against the Byzantines, one is struck by how theological accusations were permeated with various reproaches of a purely cultural nature. The 'Encyclical Letter' by Patriarch Photius is but one of many such examples. Being dedicated to the important question of the procession of the Holy Spirit, it begins with petty accusations against various liturgical and domestic customs of the Latins, such as fasting on Saturdays. Even if one takes into account that such accusations were advanced in the heat of the polemics and were part of a developed propaganda strategy, it is still evident that even minor cultural differences were regarded by both sides as grave deviations from Tradition. This, in turn, resulted from people's inability to cross the borders of their own cultural contexts. (Maximus the Confessor's attempt, in his 'Letter to Marinus', to look at the Filioque question from the Western perspective is a rare and extrinsic example of the opposite).

The schism of 1054 was,....

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Where do the Fathers of the Church say the Pope is "First Among Equals?" Can you cite me a Greek saying this before Photius?

Isn't "first among equals" a logical non-sequitur?

Here's what St. Maximus the Confessor, a Greek highly venerated by the Orthodox Church had to say of the role of the Pope:

They have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God.... It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her -- nay, to our Lord -- by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy.... Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.

And also:

The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.

[RussianConservative]

So submission to Hitler or Stalin is Christian? We submit to Bible, Ecomunical Councils, Holy Tradition not to one man with "infallability".

[RussianConservative]

And most of all, we submits to Christ. That is true submition not to a so called vicroy...

[RussianConservative]

Notice how Christian W. CATHOLIC Europe is? Not much. That is why, unlike Orthodox Churchs in Russia, Makedonia, Serbia, Georgia, Armenia, Ethiopia, etc on border islam, catholic is ghost religion...even "catholic" nations in Union not want to mention church at all. Keep up good work...should I post the photo again, photo of pope kissing koran?

[MarMema]

Yes, all 10,000 or so of them are carrying along strongly among the 100,000,000 people living there

These things are all idle talk. You are speaking of politics and worldly unity. Your church is grounded in this life, ours in the next; yours in quantity, ours in quality; yours in media shows, ours in solitude and humility.

Thank God for 10,000 or even ten who carry on strongly, as you say.

[RussianConservative]

Without this, the bitterness of hatred displayed by certain persons on this thread will poison the faith of Christ among you, because we abide not together in love.

You type breed the hatred by constantly attempting reunification with those who say no...and often with ends justifing means...maybe you missed WW2? Try being humble neighbors first...if that possible.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The bottom line is this...the Papacy bases most of it's claim to Primacy on the Clementine writings, which have been proven to be forgeries, and even Roman Catholic scholars will admit that point.

No, the Papacy bases its claims on Matthew 16.17-19, John 21.15-17, and Luke 22.31-32, as well as St. Peter's obvious place at the head of the Church in Acts, and the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

Show me a Father of the Church who denied the Primacy. I doubt you can find one who was not also a heretic, and thus not really a Father of the Church.

The greatest saints of the east, men like St. John Chrysostom, St. Peter Chrysologus, and St. Maximus the Confessor all explicitly recognized the Primacy. Have you ever read their writings, or are you too caught up in your hatreds?

[RussianConservative]

Sorry to burst the bubble but first Gulags set up by Lenin, who sponsored by a Catholic Wilhelm II. The Unia' were forced onto Orthodox through betrayal of some priests during 30 Years War when through corruption Catholics loose all North Europe and England. Then try to make it up in East. You missed that, right?

massacre of the Latin community in Constantinople in 1050-1054 That happen during civil disturbances in a turbulent time when different political parties fight for power in Constantinople...not that it right but by the way, all Orthodox church were burned in border areas with Catholics at same time...since it was Rome who threw down first Bull of Excommunication.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

So let agree on this and live like neighbors or we live like enemies.

Christ wished us to be one, not two. You refuse the follow the will of Christ with such an attitude. Nobody is asking anyone to give up their traditions, unless you think hatred and vituperation and enmity (read Galatians 5.19-26) are Holy Traditions to be retained.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

[RussianConservative]

The schism of 1054 was, therefore, the result of quite a long development, and not simply a matter of misunderstanding between the Papal envoys and the members of the Church of Constantinople, as it is sometimes presented. Obviously, dogmatic and ecclesiological differences between East and West in the first millennium did not necessitate the complete breach of eucharistic relations between the two traditions, but they definitely contributed to the alienation that resulted in this breach.

The second millennium was marked by a continual struggle between East and West, and by the numerous attempts of the Pope to bring disobedient Easterners under his control. The Crusades were the most striking and outrageous example of the use of violence against the Orthodox by their Western fellow-Christians. The memory of the Crusades is still alive among the Greeks: the wound is still bleeding. Recently the Pope 'apologized' for the Crusades before the Archbishop of Athens, which by itself was a noble action. One has to admit, however, that the apology was delayed by eight centuries. It must also be recognised that numerous remnants of the Crusaders' activity still survive, including, for example, Latin Patriarchate in Orient, which were created at the time of the Crusades in order to replace the respective Orthodox Patriarchate.

Other blows dealt repeatedly to the Orthodox were the numerous attempts to bring them under the jurisdiction of Rome by means of 'union'. The first such attempt, made in Lyon in the 13th century, was followed the Union of Ferrara-Florence in 1439, on the eve of the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Nothing has remained of these two 'unions'. But the Union of Brest, proclaimed in 1596, gave birth to ecclesiastical structures that still exist and whose recent revival has contributed to aggravating Catholic-Orthodox relations.