Posted on 04/10/2005 8:08:48 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian
By Jeffrey Donovan, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) Prague, Czech Republic
A key ambition of Pope John Paul II, especially in the years just before his death, was to reunite Christianity’s divided churches. As the first Slavic pope, John Paul was concerned above all with the Orthodox -- the Eastern churches that split with Roman Catholicism in 1054. But while progress was made in Catholic-Orthodox relations, the Russian Orthodox Church never allowed Pope John Paul to fulfill his cherished dream of visiting Russia.
Today, relations between Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy remain strained, with Moscow accusing Rome of aggressively proselytizing in Russia and other traditionally Orthodox countries. As the pope is laid to rest, some are questioning whether his hopes for uniting Christianity will be buried with him.
PRAGUE - “The problem, Holy Father, is you.” Those words were reportedly uttered to Pope John Paul II by a Greek Orthodox leader in Rome in 1982. They refer to the Orthodox rejection of the Roman Catholic claim of papal authority and infallibility. Unlike any pope before him, John Paul, the first Slavic pope, worked tirelessly to reunite Catholicism with the Orthodox churches bordering his native Poland.
But papal authority, or “Rome’s primacy” -- as well as politics and identity, particularly in Russia and Ukraine -- continues to divide the main branches of Christianity nearly 1,000 years after their “Great Schism.” “The primacy of Rome is undoubtedly [a key problem],” says Monsignor Romano Scalfi, an Italian priest who for half a century has worked to bridge the Catholic-Orthodox divide.
“However, the pope said he was willing to negotiate on the modalities in which the primate is exercised. Not much is said against the primacy [of Rome], and that’s because the Orthodox Church already acknowledges a certain ‘inter paris’ [among equals] primacy. After all, before the Schism in 1054, the primacy of the pope was more or less recognized, even in the East.”
The pope made getting back to that pre-Schism state a goal in his 1995 encyclical “Ut unum sint” ("On Christian Unity”). But even amid cooperation with some Orthodox leaders, such as Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, the pope met continuously with suspicion and distrust among the Eastern churches.
The leader of Russia's Orthodox Church -- Patriarch Aleksii -- repeatedly refused to meet the pope or allow him to visit Russia. Aleksii did not attend today's funeral, instead sending three representatives led by Metropolitan Kirill, head of external relations for the Moscow Patriarchate.
Bartholomew, after visiting with pope at the Vatican in June 2004, said in a statement that despite ecumenical progress, “papal primacy remains a particular concern” for Orthodoxy.
The situations in Ukraine and Russia -- where the Catholic-Orthodox divide also carries great political significance -- drive that point home. In Ukraine, some 5 million so-called Greek Catholics or “Uniates” follow Orthodox rites yet pledge their allegiance to the pope. Orthodox leaders fear that through the Uniates, Rome has a model for making the Orthodox churches obedient to the Vatican.
In a historic visit to western Ukraine or Galicia in 2001, the pope made an emotional appeal to Uniates, long associated with the drive for a Ukraine independent of Moscow. And he mentioned Cardinal Slipyj, a historic leader of the Uniates who spent 17 years in a Soviet gulag. "This Galician soil, which in the course of history saw the development of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, in the words of the unforgettable Cardinal Josyf Slipyj, was covered by a mountain of corpses and rivers of blood," Pope John Paul said.
But rather than improve relations with the Orthodox, the pope’s Ukrainian trip seemed only to deepen their fears of a Catholic invasion. Those fears would seem to encompass the political sphere, as well.
Last year, the Russian Orthodox Church strongly favored pro-Moscow candidate Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine’s disputed presidential elections won by Western-leaning Viktor Yushchenko, who had strong backing from Ukrainian Catholics and Uniates.
In Belarus -- which, like Russia, this pope never visited -- President Alyaksandr Lukashenka has strongly backed the Russian Orthodox Church’s stake as the country’s main religion. There have also been attacks on Catholic and Uniate churches there. Lukashenka even campaigned alongside Orthodox leaders before his reelection in 2001.
In Russia, Aleksii has accused the Vatican of seeking to exploit the Orthodox Church’s devastation under communism to win converts to Catholicism.
Yet statistics suggest the number of Catholics in Russia -- about 600,000 out of a population of 150 million -- has fallen in recent years. Meanwhile, converts to Protestant religions are soaring, while a recent poll said that only 1 percent of Russians attend Orthodox services.
Italian priest Scalfi, the founder of a Milan-based magazine on Orthodoxy called “La Nuova Europa,” says he doesn’t understand why Catholics are treated so harshly in Russia while Orthodox leaders seem to turn a blind eye to the spread of Protestantism. “For us, what’s hard to explain is the nonchalance, as it were, of the Russian Orthodox Church toward Protestantism, which is expanding like no one could have predicted," Scalfi said. "That is, more than 9,000 communities. Since the Orthodox Church has just 11,000 parishes, you can imagine [what will happen] if this [trend] continues.”
In a recent book called “You Are Peter,” Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement of France argues that Catholicism and Orthodoxy can reunite e ven by accepting a form of primacy for the Roman pontiff. Clement says this would result in a “creative tension” between the two Christian branches that would not give Rome absolute authority.
But concerns over politics and identity seem as much a part of the question as do issues of religious authority. Orthodoxy has long been closely aligned with political authority -- in Moscow and elsewhere. Early last year in Moscow, Patriarch Aleksii himself called for greater unity of Orthodox countries to fend off challenges to their traditions.
“The challenges of time naturally push nations and states -- [through] culture, world outlook, and spiritual position -- to unite," Aleksii said. "Integration trends are on the way in Europe. Muslim states seek to consolidate their [position] on the world stage. Is it possible, under such conditions, for countries with age-old Orthodox traditions and culture to remain disconnected [and] on the sidelines.”
John Paul II’s opening to the East was unlike that of any other pope. He visited many Orthodox countries, including Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, and Ukraine. The pope dreamed of unity. But what he achieved was a dialogue that has only just begun.
[The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring Service]
FOOTNOTE: The churches structures mentioned in the article above should first strongly support and practice the democratic concepts of complete "freedom of religion" and the "separation of church and state." Then they should just get on with their religious work. Mergers that create huge monopolistic structures are not good for religion or business. History has shown that power corrupts, especially in the church, and of course also in the state and in business. (EDITOR)
The Uniates were at first courted by the Communists until Stalin came along and he was afraid that this was creatinga national movement in Western Ukrain so he ended it. Stalin used one group against the other.
"State church"?!!! Not only Soviet Union had explicit separation of the church and state (it was in the constitution) but the atheism was the established state belief system. How ignorant can you be Mr. Solon?
Before WWII the atheistic policy got to the point of putting the rapid eradication of religion into the Five Year Plans. The symbol of this time was the explosion of the huge Orthodox Church - Cathedral of the Christ the Savior in Moscow (rebuilt at the great expense after the fall of Communism).
The only reason why some Orthodox churches were reopened later was the German invasion of WWII. The atheistic regime wanted desperately to motivate the Russian people to fight.
[...] "With the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II on March 15, 1917 the Romanov dynasty ended. The interim provisional government lasted six months and was overthrown by the Bolshevik Revolution led by Vladimir Lenin.
This revolution was based on a complete restructuring of society according to the ideology of Karl Marx as supplemented and adapted by Lenin. This ideology known as Communism would remake all aspects of society in the former Russian Empire in line with the concept of class warfare in which the working classes led by the Communist Party would eventually triumph over the ruling classes worldwide leading to a classless, stateless society in which all needs of the people would be met.
An integral part of Communism predicated on the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels was the notion that there is no reality except material reality. Thus, religion is a fiction, the opiate of the people, intended to restrain the aspirations of the toiling masses and to retain the old social order of the exploitation of the masses by the ruling elites. According to Marxism/Leninism religion would eventually disappear under constant pressure from the state which regarded religion as an obstruction to the creation of the perfect Communist society.
By 1931 the head of the Soviet state and of the Communist Party, Joseph Stalin, vicar of Satan, conceived a bold and symbolic plan against the Russian Orthodox Church. He would strike at Christ the Savior of Russia by destroying His temple on the banks of the Moscow River and replacing it with a new "temple" - a Palace of Soviets atop which would stand a colossal statue of Lenin. The height of the Palace and statue would exceed that of the Empire State Building in New York.
In 1931, after removing much of the interior decorations and art works, the temple was blown up and the site cleared for the proposed Palace. Several attempts to construct and to stabilize the foundations were frustrated by the slow movement thereof toward the Moscow River. The construction was abandoned and replaced by a public heated swimming pool in use for several decades.[...]"
See the full text and photos at CATHEDRAL OF CHRIST THE SAVIOR IN MOSCOW A RUSSIAN ALLEGORY
Somehow, I notice a certain aggressiveness on this thread. Am I too sensitive?
Since my heritage is German and grandpa came here before Hitler rose, most of what's on this (and other similar) thread/s is interesting historical information.
It's also clear that greedy little princelings and kings had their effect on the fortunes of various Churches in eastern Europe--similarly, various Bishops were willing to ally themselves with the powers-that-be at the time.
What's new? I can name a bunch of US Bishops who have allied themselves with the powers-that-be in the US--whether the queer activists, the feminazis, or the greenies.
The fiefdoms are not territorial here...
Have you gone daft? We all know that on paper the Soviets severed connections between church and state in 1918.
But you can have all the separation of church & state on paper all you want, but when a church, albeit a persecuted one, cooperates and supports a regime, at a time when other churches are outlawed, it becomes a de facto state church.
According to your logic since the Soviet Union guaranteed freedom of religious worship, it therefore was fact.
And you are forgetting the abysmal failure of the Militant Atheist League.
A History of Russia, Nicholas Riasanovsky - 4th edition- page588
Yet, according to an official report based on the never-published census of 1936, 55% of Soviet citizens still identified themselves as religious- while many others presumably concealed their belief.
That stubborn fact in conjunction with the general social stabilization of the thirties made Stalin & the Politburo assume a more tolerant attitude toward religion. The war and the patriotic behavior of the Church (ROC) in the war added to its acceptance and standing.
The activities of the Union of the Godless and anti-religious propaganda in general were curtailed. In return the patriarchal Church declared complete loyalty to the regime, and supported, for example, its international peace campaigns and its attempts to influence Balkan Orthodox.
More unfortunately, the two co-operated in bringing the two or three million Uniates of former eastern Poland into Orthodoxy.
The following is from Stalin's Holy War by Steven Miner- a website Destro was so kind to offer:
During the war, many Western observers believed that Stalin eased legal strictures against the Orthodox Church as a "reward" of sorts.[23] Although this was a widely held view at the time, it was not an accurate explanation, as informed people knew well enough. As early as 1927, Metropolitan Sergii, the patriarch locum tenens of the Russian Orthodox Church, had called on his followers to accept and obey Soviet power as divinely ordained.
And first learn to get the gender correct before addressing someone.
The real Solon was a man. Maybe you should change name to Lysistrata?
How sophomoric but none the less predictable.
The Inquisition was a good thing. It allowed the Church to detect heresies under direct authority of the Pope, reaching over the local bishops when necessary. When the civil government regarded heresies as treason, it executed the traitors thus identified. The Church investigated them and excommunicated the heretics. When the civil authority did not care about heresies, the Church was content with excommunication. I wish a similar mechanism were in place today, with all the pederast priests running around.
Anyone familiar with the Greek language can clearly see in Matthew 16 Christ was NOT referring to Peter (Petros), but rather to the true rock (petra)
I am very familiar with Greek. "Petros" is "Peter" and "petras" is "rock". "Petra" is grammatical inflection of "petras". Both "Petros" and "petras" are of the same gramatical stem. It is clear that Jesus is not contrasting "petras" and "Petros" but likening the two because in the same passage Christ blesses Peter and gives him the power to bind and loose.
The "get behind me Satan" passage does not refer to the confession of Peter, but rather to his willingess to interfere with the Lord's plan of salvation, which echoed the temptation of political power offered by Satan.
Thanks. So, you now agree with me that Peter was called the rock on which Christ's church is built, and given the keys to bind and loose.
The confession of Peter in Jesus is the same confession that the church is built on. That which stands behind Peter's confession, and enabled it, is that which stands behind ours. Nevertheless, this doesn't devalue the important role which Jesus gave to Peter in forming the Early Church. It is a comparative statement ... Peter IS the rock, the fondation, in the sense that he was the first to make the profession.
Also in the sense that he, Peter, was personally given the keys and the power to bind and loose on Earth, which decision would remain in Heaven. While we share St. Peter's confession, we do not possess the keys; not even the other 11 Apostles possessed the keys.
Criminal mastermind speaker urges kids to 'stay in school' - James "Destro" McCullen, the famed arms dealer for criminal organization Cobra, has sparked a new tour of inspirational speaking events at area schools.
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.