Pope: Interpretation and capacity of the petrine ministry divides us from the orthodox

Asia News ^ | 29-06-05 | Staff

[Kolokotronis]

"There may have been a little rewriting of history, which as Kosta so nicely demonstrated recently vis a vis the Maronites, is hardly unusual. Ultimately in a case like this, it doesn't matter."

Well it does to an extent because it speaks of a new revisionism which seems to be growing in Rome coupled with an aggressiveness for reunion which borders on an insistence that Orthodox "submit" to Rome. I recently spoke with an Orthodox hierarch who told me that relations with the Roman Church are a bit confused right now. The new Pope speaks a language we can understand better than anything we've heard for centuries. On the other hand, his underlings seem to have ratcheted up the revisionist history and even at the level of some of their hierarchs are beginning to insist that they know our history and theology better than our hierarchs and theologians do. There are at least two ways to look at this. First, Rome is simply impelled to seek reunion solely because that is the proper order of The Church, even if it has a view of ecclesiology which is contrary to that of the Orthodox Churches and the truth is that Rome has absolutely no cards to play in this "game". Second, Rome is in a panic because of widespread heresy in its Church, manifesting itself in syncretism in the less and least developed parts of the world and secularism and materialism in the first world. In this scenario, Orthodoxy, in something of a reversal of what went on in the first millennium of the Church, becomes the assurance and anchor of orthodox Catholicism. Unfortunately, as this hierarch pointed out, the attitude of the Roman hierarchs with whom they are speaking really owes more to the Dictatus Papae than the writings of the Fathers or the pronouncements of the Councils. I told him what we seem to be seeing from some of the Romans here on FR and he replied that he wasn't surprised since it appears to be the new tune from Rome for the past year or so. That attitude is making progress on much of anything very difficult. In fact, apparently some hierarchs think things were much better 10 or 20 years ago when there was a greater level of frankness about, respect for and acceptance of our differences...and lack of media play in these discussions. It seems that there may be some hope for working together on an equal but very separate footing to combat syncretism, materialism and secularism, at least in Europe, but even that is endangered by the supremacist attitude the Roman hierarchs reportedly are assuming (interestingly, it is the American Roman hierarchs who are viewed as virtual heretics because of matters surrounding the reception of the Holy Eucharist while it is the European and Europe based Roman hierarchs who are viewed as the big supremacists). Bottom line, it doesn't look good even with the new Pope.

[kosta50]

[the Maronites] were brought into union in 1182 by the Crusaders"

Far cry from the claims of the Maronite Church that they were in communion with Rome "from the beginning." Catholic Encyclopedia expresses doubt of Maronite catholicity before the 16th century. Even pope Pius II referrs to them as heretics as late as 1451.

An accident of history due to western and Russian passivity in the face of the utter destruction of the Greek Church between 1800 and 1925 by the Turkish fury

Just as the imperial papacy is an accident of heresy in the East and Frankish invasion in the west.

--You are confusing the Bulgarian search for a patriarchate connected to a crown with Serbs. The Serbs already had a crowned head -- he received the crown from the Pope. It was the king's son Rastko (monastic name Sava) who established Orthodoxy in Serbia. Dushan conquered most of Greece and what is today Albania. Whether he was a "true" emperor in your eyes or not is immaterial.

--Petit Patriarchs have equal votes as the "grand" Patriarchs, Hermann. That's what counts.

--Conveniently you leave out the relations with the popes and the Emperor Justinian...but concentrate on his promotion of the Holy See (out of context, given what was happening in the East, and thereby understandable).

But all this has taken us too far from the message of Pope Benedixt XVI. Despite his friendly overtures, what exactly is he proposing? He keeps reiterating that we have more in common than what divides us (we all know that), but he has yet to make concrete proposals to his plan for reconciliation.

If there is going to be any meaningful discussion in light of his invitation and overtures, there has to be some "meat" to them. Thus far, I have seen nothing but cursory compliments. How is this, then, different than all the other invitations -- from Florence onward -- that turned out to be nothing but an offer of what would amount to Unia? In other words, it really doesn't matter what the Orthodox teach and believe, or how they worship, as long as they recognize the Pope the way the Pope understands the Pope! It's all about the Pope, not theology. To which I say: thanks, but no thanks.

[kosta50]

Well it does to an extent because it speaks of a new revisionism which seems to be growing in Rome coupled with an aggressiveness for reunion which borders on an insistence that Orthodox "submit" to Rome

If you look at the last paragraphs of my post (#22), you will detect the same frustration -- even disgust with this attitude.

It all amounts to Unia. And since most of the Uniate Churches preach Orthodox theology, do not use Filioque, etc. the bottom line is "as long as you bow to the Pope, it really doesn't matter what you believe or teach."

To them the Church is Pope and the Pope is Church. Well, if that's the case, I think the Orthodox have nothing to discuss, because to this date there is nothing on the table other than the same old worn-out invitation to submit to the Pope.

[brooklyn dave]

And the Orthodox of the East did appreciate the orthodoxy of the Bishop of Rome. The one heresy that the west had to struggle with was Pelagianism.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Petit Patriarchs have equal votes as the "grand" Patriarchs, Hermann. That's what counts.

So does the Pope of Rome. He doesn't get 20 votes.

That is missing the point though. The Patriarch of Serbia (or Bulgaria) is an overglorified Archbishop or Metropolitan if you will. A true Patriarch is set over Archbishops in jurisdicitional authority. That's the whole point of the canons from Nicaea, Constaninople, and Chalcedon.

You are confusing the Bulgarian search for a patriarchate connected to a crown with Serbs. The Serbs already had a crowned head -- he received the crown from the Pope.

No I'm not. When the Serb King decided to become an Emperor of his own accord, he also decided his Archbishop needed to aggrandize his titles and perogatives to fit the dignity he himself was assuming.

Conveniently you leave out the relations with the popes and the Emperor Justinian...but concentrate on his promotion of the Holy See (out of context, given what was happening in the East, and thereby understandable).

Its always out of context with you, isn't it? Even when you quote the whole letter. What would it take to put it in context?

But all this has taken us too far from the message of Pope Benedixt XVI. Despite his friendly overtures, what exactly is he proposing?

I would think if you had read "Ut Unum Sint" issued 10 years ago, you would know what is being proposed and asked for. We've already proposed by way of making a request. We are awaiting responses, and the Pope is trying to curry them. If you aren't familiar with the proposal, I suggest reading that Encyclical.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I told him what we seem to be seeing from some of the Romans here on FR and he replied that he wasn't surprised since it appears to be the new tune from Rome for the past year or so.

Funny, I don't recall receiving any new tunes from Rome in the past year.

And I was under the impression that I am saying here what I have been saying for 10 or more years I've addressed this topic.

Maybe my Little Orphan Annie Secret Papist Propaganda Decoder Radio I got from my Bishop when I entered the Church needs some new batteries.

[Cheverus]

Hey Herm,
You've referenced some great material.

Any suggestions on a reading list covering these topics.

I have two books by Likoudis, but have yet to see any others so well written drawing so heavily on primary sources.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The accounts that I have read from Orthodox sources indicate that the Orthodox Patriarch was elected first. There may have been a little rewriting of history,

I would invite you to cite a source saying so before you go further with these "rewriting of history" accusations. Here's a simple example from the point I stated:

By the early 18th century, the Antiochene church had become polarized, with the pro-Catholic party centered in Damascus and the anti-Catholic party in its rival city, Aleppo. Patriarch Athanasios III Debbas, who died on August 5, 1724, had designated as his successor a Cypriot monk named Sylvester. His candidacy was supported by the Aleppo party and the Patriarch of Constantinople. But on September 20, 1724, the Damascus party elected as Patriarch a strongly pro-Catholic man who took the name Cyril VI. A week later, the Patriarch of Constantinople ordained Sylvester as Patriarch of Antioch. The Ottoman government recognized Sylvester, while Cyril was deposed and excommunicated by Constantinople and compelled to seek refuge in Lebanon. Pope Benedict XIII recognized Cyril’s election as Patriarch of Antioch in 1729. Thus the schism was formalized, and the Catholic segment of the patriarchate eventually became known as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. (http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg.aspx?eccpageID=68&IndexView=toc)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Here is a good book for laymen on this topic:

"One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: The Early Church was the Catholic Church" by Kenneth Whitehead.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/sim-explorer/explore-items/-/0898708028/0/101/1/none/purchase/ref%3Dpd%5Fsxp%5Fr0/002-7727007-6564036

[FormerLib]

There was an unwholesome blending of empire and Church in the East that caused the bishops to be very much subject to the emperor/empress. This simply did not happen in the West.

Borgia Popes, anyone? ;-)

[FormerLib]

The Patriarch of Serbia (or Bulgaria) is an overglorified Archbishop or Metropolitan if you will.

And he wonders why the Serbs won't return his phone calls.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

There was an unwholesome blending of empire and Church in the East that caused the bishops to be very much subject to the emperor/empress. This simply did not happen in the West.

Borgia Popes, anyone? ;-)

The Popes of this period and earlier for a few hundred years had the contrary fault. Instead of excessive subservience to the Emperor, they came to believe themselves the Emperor of the world, vastly confusing their secular powers coming from their rule of the Patrimony of St. Peter with their duties in the office of spiritual leader of Christendom. Thus, the pretensions of one Pope to divide up the possession of the known world between the Spanish and Portuguese Crowns.

Hence Caesaro-papism in Constantinople, and the Imperial Papacy in Rome, neither of which was a healthy development for the Church.

[Kolokotronis]

"Funny, I don't recall receiving any new tunes from Rome in the past year."

Hermann, are you in a position to know the nature and tone of the discussions among Roman and Orthodox hierarchs over the past, say, 30 years? RC lay people except in some rare circumstances simply don't have access to that knowledge.If you are, pass on to them that they've got a problem. There has been, in fact, a change in the tone of the dialog over the past couple or three years towards a sort of frenzy for reunion played out before the international media on the one hand and an old supremacy on the other. I say old because it harkens back to the days before +Paul VII and +Athenagoras when we regularly damned each other for heretics. Now the Pope is saying a lot of the "right things", but his runners are reasserting the supremacy arguments. This Pope has made no proposals about reunion which amount to anything more than the dhimminitude of Uniatism, if his cardinals are really speaking for him. I'm not convinced this Pope means for that to be the message, but as I said, we'll see. And as I also said, frankly, Hermann, Rome simply doesn't have any cards to play with Orthodoxy.

"Maybe my Little Orphan Annie Secret Papist Propaganda Decoder Radio I got from my Bishop when I entered the Church needs some new batteries."

Unfortunately for Rome, Hermann, we don't need decoder devices to figure out what your cardinals and bishops are saying. We've had centuries of experience with that stuff.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I'm aware of the tone over the past 30 years. I am not aware of more recent changes such as you talk about, and have a difficult time envisioning Cardinal Walter Kaspar speaking in such a way.

Perhaps the perception of frenzy on your part is the observation of your continued decline in numbers on our part (concurrent with a decline eastern Catholics in the US and Canada as well), and our hope to help you do something about it if only we were in union.

It is my understanding that the number of actually active members of the OCA (those who show up weekly and pay Church dues), for example, is fewer than the number of active Catholics in the 12 Catholic parishes nearest my home (around 25,000). Similarly, the number of new seminarians for the 600 parish Greek Orthodox Church in America is only 10-20 per year, hardly enough for the Church to be a going concern long term. Similarly, the Church in Greece and Serbia and Russia is in no better a situation than the Catholic Church in France or Belgium - perhaps 20% of the people are active parishoners, and the rest are little better than rank pagans with a gloss of Christianity.

[Kolokotronis]

"...have a difficult time envisioning Cardinal Walter Kaspar speaking in such a way."

Indeed! I understand he's one of the worst. He's been a great success with the Russians hasn't he?

As for a decline, the GOA isn't closing parishes, its opening new ones and we have no shortage of priests and won't for the foreseeable future. Do you honestly think that if we graduate 20 seminarians a year we can't staff 600 parishes???? The same is true with the Antiochians. I can't speak for the OCA. Where I am, it has been announced that 2 of three Catholic Churches in the State will be closing; in the meantime priests are handling two and three parishes all alone. It has also been announced from the bishop's office that lay people and nuns will be taking over "Communion services" because even more parishes will have no priests at all. Like I said Hermann, Rome has no cards to play with Orthodoxy.

Your comments about the faithfulness of Greek Orthodox in Greece bespeaks a particularly Roman "You'll go to hell if you miss Mass" mindset. The Greeks are very religious people, also great sinners. I suspect that weekly attendance probably is about 20% of the population which is nearly 100% Orthodox. But here's the thing, Orthodoxy doesn't damn you to hell if you miss the Liturgy. In fact, there are hierarchs and priests who will instruct our own legalists, when they are complaining about people not being in Church every Sunday, "Don't go Roman Catholic on me." You are comparing apples and oranges, Hermann.

Here is perhaps a more fruitful way to approach this matter, Hermann. It is clear that many Orthodox, hierarchs, monastics and clergy, simply don't trust or like their Roman counterparts. The reverse is also true. I don't think I'm revealing any secrets when I say that among non Roman Catholic lay people, Orthodox included, there is a certain distaste and disdain for, and even a fear of, Rome. Among the Orthodox in particular, there is a deep and abiding refusal to worship God like you do, accept your ecclesiology or engage in the mental knot tying of so much of your theology. In other words, they don't want to submit to Rome, go to your churches or take on your problems. Now, how do we deal with that?

[Pyro7480]

The Greeks are very religious people, also great sinners. I suspect that weekly attendance probably is about 20% of the population which is nearly 100% Orthodox. But here's the thing, Orthodoxy doesn't damn you to hell if you miss the Liturgy.

Isn't still sinful? We're supposed to "keep the Sabbath holy."

[Kolokotronis]

"Isn't still sinful? We're supposed to "keep the Sabbath holy."

We certainly are and once upon a time the Roman priests and nuns told 2nd graders that if they ate a ham sandwich on Friday and died before going to confession it was off to hell with you! By the way, whatever happened to all those souls in hell after Rome dumped fasting as being, well, just too much to ask of the faithful?

[Pyro7480]

LOL. Jesus did say to Peter, "whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew 16:19). Simple answer: only God knows. ;-)

[Kolokotronis]

". Simple answer: only God knows. ;-)"

Very Orthodox of you, P! :)

[MarMema]

GOA is booming out here with two mission parishes. Our OCA cathedral is so packed it is beginning to irritate me, and we also have two mission parishes.

Of course just north of me in Alaska you can't find a town without an Orthodox parish in it.