Posted on 12/03/2006 9:30:49 AM PST by Kolokotronis
STANBUL, Turkey, DEC. 1, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI's visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople "is of incalculable value in the process of reconciliation," says Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I.
In this interview with the Italian newspaper Avvenire, the patriarch revealed that he made an unexpected ecumenical proposal to the Pope.
Q: What can you tell us about this journey?
Bartholomew I: Above all, I must say that I truly thank His Holiness for his visit to us on the feast day of St. Andrew. It is a truly very significant step forward in our relations, and undertaken in the framework of a journey which has made, on the whole, a contribution to interreligious dialogue which I think is truly important.
Q: You and the Pope have seen one another face to face several times, away from the cameras and journalists. What have you said to one another?
Bartholomew I: His Holiness showed his benevolence to the patriarchate and its problems; for this reason we are truly grateful to him.
It has been an opportunity to know one another better, including the cardinals of his entourage, with whom I think we have established a good friendship, and this also seems to me to be very important.
We can truly say that this Thursday we lived a historic day, under many aspects. Historic for ecumenical dialogue and, as we saw in the afternoon, historic for the relationship between cultures and religions. And, obviously, because of all this, historic also for our country.
Q: The addresses and common declaration you signed are "lofty" and compromising. Have you also spoken of the future?
Bartholomew I: In this respect, I can say that I spoke with His Holiness of something -- something that we could do. I presented him with a proposal which I cannot now elaborate on, as we await an official response, but I can say that His Holiness was very interested and that he received it favorably.
We hope it can be undertaken as it is directed to that ecumenical progress that, as we have affirmed and written in the common declaration, both of us are determined to pursue.
Q: Why are you so determined?
Bartholomew I: Unity is a precious responsibility, but at the same time a difficult one which must be assumed if it is not shared between brothers. The history of the last millennium is a painful "memory" of this reality.
We are profoundly convinced that Benedict XVI's visit has incalculable value in this process of reconciliation, as, in addition, it has taken place at such a difficult time and in very delicate circumstances.
Without a doubt, with the help of God we are offered the opportunity to take a beneficial step forward in the process of reconciliation in our Churches. And perhaps, with the help of God, we will be given the opportunity to surmount some of the barriers of incomprehension among believers of different religions, in particular between Christians and Muslims.
Q: Earlier you also mentioned the importance of this for Turkey. Why?
Bartholomew I: Being at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, this city and this Church hold a truly unique position to foster a meeting among modern civilizations. In a certain sense, Istanbul is the perfect place to become a permanent center of dialogue between the different faiths and cultures.
Fascinating. Thank you very much. Much obliged.
I can tell you that many in Serbia like "Turkish" music and singing as part of the popular modern music, and that some probably don't even "connect" it to Turkey. After 500 years of Turkish influence and occupation, that oesn't come as a surprize.
As for the Russian and Serbian chants being similar, again my untrained ear agrees. The Agios o Theos chant I posted earlier (although in Greek for the most part) sounds a lot more like the Znamenny chants than anything I heard in the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
I am surprised by the suddenness of the move, but I am not puzzled. We are going through a paradigm shift, and rapidly. The Pope is in the clear that a point apporaches -- if not upon us -- when the Muslim world is not more dangerous for the Church than the secular neopagan West.
At the same time the influence of the US and of Israel is rapidly diminishing in theMiddle East, as Islam is radicalizing.
This explains the urgent need to protect and preserve the Christian minorities in the Middle East and hopefully foster an emergence of moderate Muslim states in Turkey, Lebanon, West Bank, Jordan and Egypt.
At no point since the Crusades, perhaps, was the disunity of the two apostolic Churches such a perilous exercise.
The EP is in perilous position; the Orthodox Churhc is not, Alex. I am not sure I follow your train of thought on this one.
I also don't think Israel's and American infuence is diminishing in the Middle East. If it did, it would lead to de-radicalization of the Muslims, if anything.
The secular West in its European form is dying out -- literally. And the Islamic world shows no evidence of being susceptible to the virus.
So I have a hard time seeing how the Pope or anyone else could come to the conclusion that the former is more of a long-term threat to the recovery of Catholicism than is the latter.
Under Islamic rule, neither paganism nor Christianity fares well at all -- "people of the book" propaganda notwithstanding.
And what exactly about the Pope's visit would foster moderate Muslim states -- or protect Christian minorities? If he is bold, he brings down wrath on them, and if he is conciliatory, he confirms Muslim perceptions of Christian weakness, emboldening radicals.
I do not think annalex is proposing the peril is to the Orthodox primarily, but to Christendom as a whole. While the peril presses most closely on the Christian minorities in the Middle East, whether Orthodox or Uniate (or monophysite or Nestorian), Western Europe is likewise in peril.
Both churches have deep reserves not under immediate threat--the Latins in the Americas, the Orthodox in Slavic lands--but until the secular powers in the West really come to grips with the threat posed by Islam not only to Christianity, but to 'post-Christian' secularism, that fact is not very helpful.
Always somebody who wants to put a turd in the punch bowl.
Very true; also let us note that the neopagan secularism is a genuine major threat in itself and apart from the threat of Islam.
I will elaborate later today on my previous post.
Am I supposed to know who you are?
The Pope is in the clear that a point [is near when] the Muslim world is not more dangerous for the Church than the secular neopagan West.
The Pope's continuing lament is the "tyranny of the relativism". This is the disease of the secular neopagan West. It is true, Agrarian, that generationally speaking the future is dim for it, -- if the current birthrates continue. It should not lead us to complacency. At this point, and in the life time of our generation, there is no greater threat to Christendom than that -- excepting, of course, physical destruction at the hand of the Muslim radicals or some other military foe.
It is true that in the event of a military defeat on Western soil -- a scenario not particularly likely, -- the neopagans will not do either better or worse than the Christians. It is therefore, a triangular framework of contention, which is precisely why we should not assume that regardless of the issue we should side with one of the two remaining forces and never the other. A good example is resisting the UN and its pro-death social agenda. In this field the Muslim are our best ally, and the secularists our worst enemy.
the influence of the US and of Israel is rapidly diminishing in the Middle East, as Islam is radicalizing. This explains the urgent need to protect and preserve the Christian minorities in the Middle East and hopefully foster an emergence of moderate Muslim states in Turkey, Lebanon, West Bank, Jordan and Egypt
It is a good point that it is radicalizing because of our and Israeli presence. But that presence is not going away; our (I speak of the US and Israel as political an military entities here) dominance, however, is fading following the imminent abandonment of the earlier goals in Iraq and inability of Israel to destroy Hezbollah. The US and Israel are entering a world where Iran and Saudi Arabia are invigorated, and we are gradually sidelined as a geopolitical power.
But it not in the interest of Christendom to allow the Islamic radicalizaton to happen. The Middle East is our point of reference; the two great Churches have flock that is important witness to apostolic Christianity scattered all over it, and we have Christian relics of extreme importance. Our goal should be to reclaim the Middle East for Christianity; it is in fact our duty.
Here I'd like to draw a distinction. When the US military appears weak, that invites more violence. The Pope, however, is not a military leader. In humility is his strength. I believe it to be remarkable how his visit completely lacked triumphalism -- for which we probalby secretly longed, but triumphalism would have been completely disastrous given the humbling circumstances of today's Middle East. If robust Christian presence is to remain in the Middle East, Turkey has to take leadership in that, together with Lebanon, and ideally, with the West Bank.
the disunity of the two apostolic Churches such a perilous exercise.
In relation to both the neopagan West and to the radical Muslim East, we do not have a good position and need each other in order for that position to be strengthened. In the West, Rome is under weathering assault from the modernizers, both of liberal Catholic and Protestant anticlerical persuasion. It seems at times that we are just one or to papacies away from a dogmatic meltdown. But the Orthodoxy is moving to the West, even as the Western consumerist attitudes are arriving to Slavdom. We are at the point where the Catholic need the Orthodox witness as the historical continuing church founded by Christ. But the Orthodox need the Catholic scholastic tradition, and the historical presence in Europe and America if it is to resist neo-orthodox reformist theologies seeping in.
In the Muslim East, it is out duty to shelter our flock, including the pre-Chalcedon brethren, who often do not know which church to join, and cannot afford complete independence. The Orthodox Chruch as a whole, and certainly the Eastern Patriarch have little to bargan on with Islam, and do not have a temporal power similar to Europe and the US behind it. Here Rome emerges as a powerful negotiating partner, which could offer the Muslim access to Europe in return for religious pluralism. It can do so because it carefully laid a distance between itself and the US geopolitics.
The situation this year resembles to me a complex chess game. It is possible to read the same position completely differently, although I frankly cannot think of any other coherent way to view it but mine. As always in chess, -- especially in the three-way chess we are playing -- the actions of others can affect the development of the game. But I think you would, at a minimum, agree that the equilibrium of the past decade is now gone and a new equilibrium has not been reached; things will be very fluid for a while.
Turkey shuns "fundamentalist degeneration": Pope
By Phil Stewart
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, speaking after a landmark trip to Turkey, described the country on Wednesday as an example of a secular Muslim state able to shun "fundamentalist degeneration".
In remarks at his weekly general audience, he also expressed hope that Turkey could become a "bridge of friendship and brotherly cooperation between the West and East".
The Pope said that since Turkey was predominantly Muslim but regulated by a secular constitution it was "emblematic" of the challenge facing states trying to balance religious expression and the needs of civil society.
He held up Turkey as an example of how a country can "guarantee that the expression of such a faith be free, without fundamentalist degeneration, and capable of firmly repudiating every form of violence".
The Pope's trip last week seems to have persuaded many Turks to move beyond the tensions caused by a speech last September in which he quoted a Byzantine emperor calling Islam violent. The speech infuriated Muslims around the world.
During the visit he called Islam a peaceful faith and on Wednesday he expressed hope that Christians and Muslims could work together "for life, peace and justice".
Benedict became the second Roman Catholic Pontiff to visit a mosque when he stopped to pray at Istanbul's Blue Mosque.
"Pausing for a few minutes being received in this place of prayer, I addressed the one Lord of heaven and earth, father of mercy for all humanity," he said.
During the trip, he did an about-face and voiced support for Ankara's bid to join the European Union. Before being elected Pope in April 2005, he had opposed Turkey's entry.
Your opinions have merit, Alex, but this particular quote is debatable. The Orthodox have rejected Latin scholasticism as part of the official Orthodox teaching, which is based on hesychastic theology and uncreated energies of God's Grace, which the Catholic West rejects.
With the acceptance of Palamite theology in the early 14th century, based on monasticism, Desert Fathers and Capaddocian Fathers, Orthodox Christianity established officially what has been our continuous tradition. At the same time, western scholasticism was rejected.
This is not derogative or demeaning of western scholasticism. It simply does not fit the Orthodox phronema.
Given that the East has survived and maintained such doctrine without interuption, please explain why is it that, now almost 2,000 years later, the Orthodox need Latin Catholic scholasticism.
"This is not derogative or demeaning of western scholasticism. It simply does not fit the Orthodox phronema."
Its not simply a matter of doesn't fit. It's product, the Western Latin phronema, is virtually a polar opposite. And I too mean nothing derogatory by my remark. Its merely an observation.
This is only the second time I've found anything with which to disagree with Pope Benedict on more than nuances.
Turkish secularism is not a model for anything except envy by Western secularists: religion is driven from the public square in Turkey in a way that the ACLU must envy--only the Patriarch of Constantinople and the most senior Muslim cleric (or perhaps the most senior Sunni and most senior Shi'ite) can appear in public in distinctive clerical dress. Note that the Pope wore a white overcoat patterned a bit like a modern Western cassock, but not his usual white cassock, when in public in Turkey.
It may be that such heavy-handedness is necessary to establish anything like a Western civil society in a Muslim country, but the strangling of the Patriarchate by the closing of its seminary on the grounds that it doesn't meet Turkey's secular admissions standards, again, is a model only for legal persecution of religion and little else.
Of course scholasticism is a foreign object to Orthodoxy. However, to the extent that the Orthodox Church has to deal with the Protestant influences it needs the Catholic experience in that arena. This is all I meant.
Turkey is not a model for us, perhaps, but it surely is for the countries like Saudi Arabia. Besides, the Holy Father did not say "model".
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.