Mount Athos Objects [to visit of Pope Benedict XVI] (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)

CatholicExchange.com ^ | April 15, 2007 | George Weigel

[Salvation]

George Weigel	Other Articles by George Weigel Printer Friendly Version
Mount Athos Objects

---

April 15, 2007

Last December's visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople revived speculation that the millennium-long division between Rome and the Christian East might soon end. That was certainly the dream of Benedict's predecessor, the Servant of God John Paul II, who really did seem to believe that Rome and Constantinople could achieve ecclesial reconciliation by the end of the twentieth century, so that a millennium of division — the formal split having taken place in 1054 -- would be succeeded by a new millennium of unity, in a return to the relations that prevailed in the first centuries of Christian history.

It was a noble vision, but it may not have accurately measured the depth of the chasm between Catholicism and some parts of the worlds-within-worlds of Orthodoxy. Recent comments on Benedict's December pilgrimage by the Orthodox monks of Mount Athos suggest that the division is deep and wide indeed.

Mount Athos, a craggy peninsula in northern Greece, is home to twenty self-governing Orthodox monasteries. In fact, Mount Athos is virtually a country unto itself; its formal designation in Greece is the "Autonomous Monastic State of the Holy Mountain." No women or female animals are allowed on Mount Athos; visitors are strictly limited; only male members of the Orthodox Church may become monks. And, while Mount Athos comes under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Athonite monks, who regard their monasticism as what they term "the non-negotiable guardian of the Holy Tradition," were very unhappy with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the way he treated his Roman guest in December.

Why? Because, the monks complained, "the Pope was received as though he were the canonical bishop of Rome." There were other complaints, but that was the first listed in a statement released last December 30 by the Assembly of Representatives and Superiors of the twenty monasteries: Why was Bartholomew treating Benedict as though the latter were, in fact, the bishop of Rome?

Well, if we can't agree on that, we do have, as Jim Lovell told Mission Control, a problem.

To be sure, Athonite monasticism, "the non-negotiable guardian of the Holy Tradition," is a particularly stringent form of Orthodoxy. And if the monks of Mount Athos have their dubieties about the ecumenical openness of Patriarch Bartholomew, it is, perhaps, not surprising that they imagine Benedict XVI as a usurper and a teacher of heresies. Yet this Athonite intransigence reflects a hard truth about Catholic-Orthodox relations after a millennium of division: namely, that, for many Orthodox Christians, the statement "I am not in communion with the Bishop of Rome" has become an integral part of the statement, "I am an Orthodox Christian."

The obverse is not true. I very much doubt that there are more than a handful of Catholics around the world whose confession of Catholic faith includes, as a key component, "I am not in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople." The truth of the matter is that, outside historically Orthodox countries and certain ethnic communities, the thought of how one stands vis-à-vis the Patriarch of Constantinople simply doesn't enter Catholic heads. Perhaps that's a problem, but it's nowhere near as great an obstacle to ecumenical progress as the conviction in some Orthodox quarters that non-communion with Rome is a defining characteristic of what it means to be "Orthodox."

1054, it now seems clear, was not a date-in-a-vacuum. Rather, the mutual excommunications of 1054 were the cash-out, so to speak, of a drifting-apart that had been going on for centuries, driven by language and politics, to be sure, but also by different theological sensibilities. Are those two sensibilities necessarily Church-dividing? The Catholic answer is, "No." But that is emphatically not the answer of Mount Athos, and of those Orthodox for whom the Athonite monks are essentially right, if a bit over-the-top.

All of which suggests that John Paul II's dream of a Church breathing once again with both of its lungs is unlikely of fulfillment anytime soon. Unless, that is, Islamist pressures compel a reexamination within Orthodoxy of what a life-line to Rome might mean.

 

George Weigel is author of the bestselling books The Courage to Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church and Letters to a Young Catholic.

This column has been made available to Catholic Exchange courtesy of the Denver Catholic Register.

[Salvation]

Trying to post articles that NYer might post.

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

[kawaii]

where’s nyer?

[kawaii]

as i recall there’s like 20 monastaries on mount athos, and only one objected ...

i could be mistaken though.

i want to visit mount athos if and when i get around to visiting greece.

[Salvation]

In the hospital!

Prayer Request for Freeper NYer

[Tax-chick]

Why was Bartholomew treating Benedict as though the latter were, in fact, the bishop of Rome?

Is this a trick question?

[Salvation]

**Is this a trick question?**

Precisely why it is posted for Catholic — Orthodox discussion.

[kawaii]

Certainly Orthodoxy doesn’t recognize canonical jurisdiction of Churches which are in schism from Orthodoxy.

There is no Patriarch of Rome as far as Orthodoxy is concern. Italy has an Orthodox Bishop under the Ecumenical Patriarch, also there are a few other Orthodox jurisdictions with parishes there.

There is one Orthodox group in italy claiming to be the Orthodox Church of italy but they seem to be schismatic group split from the Bulgarian Orthodox church...

[Tax-chick]

So if there’s no Orthodox “Bishop of Rome,” what’s wrong with (as it were) Joseph Ratzinger’s being the Bishop of Rome? Do they think he’s not a Bishop, or is it “Rome” that’s the problem?

Would they also think that Peter Jugis isn’t the Bishop of Charlotte, North Carolina?

[kawaii]

There is a Bishop, not a Patriarch.

His Eminence Gennadios, Orthodox Metropolitan Archbishop of Italy
http://www.ortodossia.it/

[kawaii]

North Carolina would be a bigger trick question since I’m sure that the EP/GOA, MP, ROCOR, OCA, and Antiochian churches all have a bishop with jurisdiction over that area (which is not canonical).

[Tax-chick]

Are you saying, then, that the point is that the position of “Bishop of Rome” is filled by Metropolitan Archbishop Gennadios, and therefore Joseph Ratzinger can’t be Bishop of Rome?

Sort of like Elizabeth II is Queen of England, but there’s still a Stuart Pretender out there somewhere claiming he’s the rightful monarch ...

[kawaii]

Well I’d say it’s part that the position is filled within Orthodoxy, and part that strictly speaking Joseph Ratzinger is the representative of a heterodox group and shouldn’t be greeted with the same ceremony the recognized Orthodox Bishop with juridiction over Italy would be.

It’s interesting though because (as in the case of your mention of Carolina) there’s at least 5 guys who are Orthodox Bishops of New York, would they all be greeted with the same ceremony? I dunno.

Interesting also is if we renter communion what would become of Metropolitan Archbishop Gennadios, since canonically there shouldn’t be 2 bishops over Italy. Though in practice this is the case in many places...

[kawaii]

thoughts?

[Tax-chick]

It’s highly complex, obviously :-).

However, I don’t think it would create a major problem if there were a restoration of communion, because the different Catholic rites in union with Rome already have overlapping geographical jurisdictions.

[siunevada]

There is one Orthodox group in italy claiming to be the Orthodox Church of italy but they seem to be schismatic group split from the Bulgarian Orthodox church...

There are these folks who are under the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

That article also mentions the 'extra-ecclesial' influence that secular interests have had in this split.

[kawaii]

there probably would need to be some sort of pan-church council at that point to either exclude specific territories from the canons or dispense with the geographical boundaries all together... i guess..

[Kolokotronis]

“Yet this Athonite intransigence reflects a hard truth about Catholic-Orthodox relations after a millennium of division: namely, that, for many Orthodox Christians, the statement “I am not in communion with the Bishop of Rome” has become an integral part of the statement, “I am an Orthodox Christian.””

Thoughts? I think this is an idiotic statement. My maternal family has been Orthodox for 1800 years +/-; my paternal family Western Catholics since +Patrick so darn near as long. I would be astonished if any of them ever defined their Faith in any fashion by thinking about NOT being in communion with the EP or the Pope. In my opinion, anyone who does, whether he deludes himself into thinking he is a guardian of Orthodoxy or not, understands next to nothing about Orthodoxy.

K, you noted that it was only one monastery which objected vociferously to the December meeting and we all know which monastery that was and what sort of “monks” inhabit it. They are a group of schismatic, disobedient nuts who have latched onto +BXVI’s visit to further their own schism. This is not at all true of the rest of the monasteries at the Holy Mountain.

The comments about the Pope not being the Bishop of Rome are just silly and the fact that we also have hierarchs there is simply a result of the Great Schism and as such makes a lot more sense than the jurisdictional mess existing among Orthodox jurisdictions outside traditionally Orthodox lands.

“All of which suggests that John Paul II’s dream of a Church breathing once again with both of its lungs is unlikely of fulfillment anytime soon. Unless, that is, Islamist pressures compel a reexamination within Orthodoxy of what a life-line to Rome might mean.”

The first sentence is likely true, but for ecclesiological and theological differences, not because some group of schismatic monks at Mt. Athos think the Pope is a phoney hierarch. The second sentence is more idiocy. Does this author seriously think, 550 years after the Fall of the City to the Mohammedans, that suddenly we are so concerned about Mohammedan oppression that we need a lifeline from Rome? If anything, for the Latin Church in Europe, its quite the other way around and the danger there is secular modernism and only after that Mohammedanism. Orthodoxy doesn’t “need” the Latin Church, but the reverse might well be true.

[kawaii]

Thoughts? I think this is an idiotic statement. My maternal family has been Orthodox for 1800 years +/-; my paternal family Western Catholics since +Patrick so darn near as long. I would be astonished if any of them ever defined their Faith in any fashion by thinking about NOT being in communion with the EP or the Pope. In my opinion, anyone who does, whether he deludes himself into thinking he is a guardian of Orthodoxy or not, understands next to nothing about Orthodoxy.

I thought that bit was odd myself... the only time i've heard the topic come up is when Catholics are chrismated into the church and must renounce the heretical teachings of the Bishop of Rome (who's called as much as i recall). I've never heard of anyone adding it to the creed.

[kawaii]

K, you noted that it was only one monastery which objected vociferously to the December meeting and we all know which monastery that was and what sort of “monks” inhabit it. They are a group of schismatic, disobedient nuts who have latched onto +BXVI’s visit to further their own schism. This is not at all true of the rest of the monasteries at the Holy Mountain. The comments about the Pope not being the Bishop of Rome are just silly and the fact that we also have hierarchs there is simply a result of the Great Schism and as such makes a lot more sense than the jurisdictional mess existing among Orthodox jurisdictions outside traditionally Orthodox lands. “All of which suggests that John Paul II’s dream of a Church breathing once again with both of its lungs is unlikely of fulfillment anytime soon. Unless, that is, Islamist pressures compel a reexamination within Orthodoxy of what a life-line to Rome might mean.” The first sentence is likely true, but for ecclesiological and theological differences, not because some group of schismatic monks at Mt. Athos think the Pope is a phoney hierarch. The second sentence is more idiocy. Does this author seriously think, 550 years after the Fall of the City to the Mohammedans, that suddenly we are so concerned about Mohammedan oppression that we need a lifeline from Rome? If anything, for the Latin Church in Europe, its quite the other way around and the danger there is secular modernism and only after that Mohammedanism. Orthodoxy doesn’t “need” the Latin Church, but the reverse might well be true.

All that said i'd rather see some other ceremony that the one used if a caonical bishop in communion were to travel there. More on account of not wanting outward displays to insinuate a level of union we're not yet arrived at. I think his travel there is important and that he should certainly be greeted in a way that demonstrates his not just some schmoe or foreign leader of state.

[markomalley]

There is no Patriarch of Rome as far as Orthodoxy is concern.

---

So this statement by the Patriarch of Constantinople (made in conjunction with the Pope) means nothing?

4. Since they are certain that they express the common desire for justice and the unanimous sentiment of charity which moves the faithful, and since they recall the command of the Lord: "If you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brethren has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go first be reconciled to your brother" (Matt. 5:23-24), Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod, in common agreement, declare that:

A. They regret the offensive words, the reproaches without foundation, and the reprehensible gestures which, on both sides, have marked or accompanied the sad events of this period.

B. They likewise regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication which followed these events, the memory of which has influenced actions up to our day and has hindered closer relations in charity; and they commit these excommunications to oblivion.

C. Finally, they deplore the preceding and later vexing events which, under the influence of various factors—among which, lack of understanding and mutual trust—eventually led to the effective rupture of ecclesiastical communion.

5. Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I with his synod realize that this gesture of justice and mutual pardon is not sufficient to end both old and more recent differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Reference

It seems to me that if the excommunications are committed to oblivion, that the parochialism should be committed there, as well.

[kawaii]

the joint repeal of the anathemas DO NOT constitute union, there is an Archbishop of Italy, as discussed earlier one btw who is appointed by the Patrirarch of Constatinople.

[Claud]

I am curious about something. Who within the highest levels of Orthodoxy of the past 1000 years has officially declared the Latin Church heretical? Specifically, not in the realm of private opinion of great saints and patriarchs and bishops but rather in formal decrees like an Ecumenical Council? What’s the most authoritative thing that one can point to?

[FourtySeven]

It seems to me it’s just one monastary voicing objections. This article seems to blow it out of proportion, (maybe even) to cling to divisions itself.

We should keep praying for reunification; we have so much more in common with the Orthodox than uncommon. It would be a shame to let ancient historical disagreements and political maneuverings hinder the growth of the One True Church.

[kawaii]

we havent really had an eccumenical council since 787...

[Claud]

we havent really had an eccumenical council since 787...

Right. What I'm driving at here is that if "Latinism" is a heresy, it at least has not been condemned on the same scale as say, iconoclasm or Arianism.

So by what authority do these particular Athonite monks have to say there is no canonically valid Bishop of Rome? Only what you or I have as private Christians, which is none.

Deposing patriarchs...wouldn't that be for a Council to decide?

[kawaii]

that said the things which are in disagreement are real differences not political and not misu8nderstandings, this is one of the rules the Russian Church has with regard to engaging ecumenical dialog.

[kawaii]

If any major orthodox body suggested that communion did exist between catholics and orthodox it might be worth discussing what impact the stance of the monastary on mt athos has

[kawaii]

i don’t think any have a problem with the latin rite... heck there’s orthodox jurisdictions which have latin rite liturgies...

[Claud]

I’m agreed that there isn’t full communion right now, and I think that the Orthodox formulation...that we not have it until we believe the same thing...is right on the money. False union doesn’t help anybody.

But even less helpful is false division. And I am wondering how binding the Orthodox condemnation for the Latin “heresies” is, if it does not have the weight of an Ecumenical Council to back it up. Especially since the two sides recently agreed not to call the respective positions on the “filioque” heretical for the time being, did they now?

And I’d respectfully disagree with my friend Kolo’s statement that Orthodoxy doesn’t need the Latin Church. I think going 1200+ years without any ecumenical council bespeaks some kind of impaired functioning of the Universal Church. Did not Met. Zizioulas (?) sagely say recently that there can be no Council without a primus?

[kawaii]

Just because one Patriarch suggest the “the two sides recently agreed not to call the respective positions on the “filioque” heretical for the time being, did they now?” does not making it a binding act of Orthodoxy.

It seems you’re making the mistake of assuming that the church is a top down structure, and what the EP says goes.

[Claud]

I didn’t think the agreement was a binding act; it was, however, a statement that perhaps we should revisit this question. I cannot imagine any such agreement would be reached with Arians or Iconoclasts. I’m aware of Orthodox ecclesiology and I hope I wouldn’t make such a basic mistake as to make the EP an Orthodox Pope; which is why I focused on Councils.

My apologies if I am not being clear enough or wandering off into tangents, but my basic question is...how does the average Orthodox know that the filioque/infallibility is heretical? I realize, of course, that they have been condemned by many great Orthodox saints (Photios among them), but are those condemnations binding in the same way that, say, the canons against Arianism are binding?

[Kolokotronis]

“But even less helpful is false division. And I am wondering how binding the Orthodox condemnation for the Latin “heresies” is, if it does not have the weight of an Ecumenical Council to back it up.”

The method for receiving Latins into the Orthodox Church has changed many times over the centuries and clearly never with the authority of an Ecumenical Council. I’ve been to a number of chrismations of Latins and while the usual suspects for Latin heresies likely don’t amount to much anymore, the declarations of Vatican I probably fit in the category of heresy from an Orthodox pov if taken at face value.

“And I’d respectfully disagree with my friend Kolo’s statement that Orthodoxy doesn’t need the Latin Church. I think going 1200+ years without any ecumenical council bespeaks some kind of impaired functioning of the Universal Church. Did not Met. Zizioulas (?) sagely say recently that there can be no Council without a primus?”

Orthodoxy, like the Latin Church, has had all sorts of councils since the Great Schism and every one of them has had a primus. Met. John is absolutely right that there needs to be a primus to have a council and in Orthodoxy, as with the Church of Rome, we have a primus for each Church who, among other things, presides at councils. Now of course from an Orthodox pov there have not been nor could there be any Ecumenical Councils since the Great Schism because a) the Pope or his legate can’t preside (a sine qua non of a true Ecumenical council) for us and b)because of the Schism, the entire Church would not be represented. Solve the first and the second will be well on its way to resolution. But as to your point, C, Orthodoxy, with its unique ecclesiology, has functioned very well (though obviously not perfectly) without Ecumenical Councils since the Schism. Its Western Christianity which has come apart at the seams since the Great Schism. The foregoing is not to say that Orthodoxy would not benefit from an Ecumenical Council. It would, at a minimum because it would strengthen Chrisianity in general in the West by returning the Latin Church to its earlier pre-Schism orthodoxy and that would be a very good thing for Orthodoxy and indeed the world.

[kawaii]

the anathemas it would seem to me would be constatinople’s perogtive to remove.

that said numerous heriarchs then and now would dismiss the filioque as heresy out of hand, however there is a pan orthodox council studying the matter.

given however the condemnation both historically and at present, as well as the blanket renunciation of heresies of the Bishop of Rome in chrismations of Catholics in parishes i’ve been to i’d have to figure it’s still considered heresy.

unfortunatly while i’d pretty happily follow our bishops were they to say this is changed(that the filioque is not heretical) i suspect many folks would leave the church if it were decided otherwise.

[Claud]

The method for receiving Latins into the Orthodox Church has changed many times over the centuries and clearly never with the authority of an Ecumenical Council. I’ve been to a number of chrismations of Latins and while the usual suspects for Latin heresies likely don’t amount to much anymore, the declarations of Vatican I probably fit in the category of heresy from an Orthodox pov if taken at face value.

I find your "probably" important there, and kinda makes my point again. :)

Orthodox laypeople and even patriarchs can make their own judgments, but it is the Universal Church which is the final arbiter. And since that hasn't sat (from the Orthodox POV) for 1200+ years, the door has to be left open that it really wasn't heresy after all, but a misunderstanding. Perhaps even Vat I may well not be heretical from the Orthodox POV if understood correctly (and stripped of all the ultra-Montanism that, frankly, my side of this debate has to be much more careful of.)

And, BTW, I agree Orthodoxy has functioned well....compare with the meltdown of Protestantism and it's clear that the marks of the Church are there. But then again, what the Western Church lost in Europe over 500 years it gained around the world with a missionary dynamism. I know you good folks don't see it this way, but I perceive a sort of "Christian retrenchment" in the East. I know you'll probably tell me that's a function of Byzantine theology looking to the other world rather than this one! So I'm not knocking the outlook, I'm just saying that your criteria for the overall health of the Church considers different indicators than ours.

[Kolokotronis]

“I find your “probably” important there, and kinda makes my point again. :)”

You know, you’re right to an extent. A Great Council would have the opportunity to condemn this as heresy:

“We teach and declare that,

* according to the gospel evidence,
* a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God
* was immediately and directly
o promised to the blessed apostle Peter and
o conferred on him by Christ the lord.”

and these two especially:

“So, then,

* if anyone says that
o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
+ not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
+ not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.”

and

” * we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

o when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
+ that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
o he possesses,
+ by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
o that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
o Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”

:)

“But then again, what the Western Church lost in Europe over 500 years it gained around the world with a missionary dynamism.”

Well that’s true; the Sword and the Cross! The Cross certainly followed the Spanish and Portugese flags (and swords) in their imperial expansions. Once the Roman Empire began to come apart, and with the exception of Imperial Russia, Orthodox countries didn’t follow an imperial path into pagan lands.

[kawaii]

Imperial Russia never converted by the sword.

[Kolokotronis]

“Imperial Russia never converted by the sword.”

No, it certainly didn’t. That’s why I didn’t write about Russian swords, only Spanish and Potugese ones (should have added French ones too).

[vladimir998]

“Imperial Russia never converted by the sword.”

Some Old Believers might disagree.... if they were still alive to do it. ;)

But seriously, the Russians were not above using force. Why else would there be that famous statement from the Kieven chronicler about the conversion of Novgorod: “Putiata baptised with a sword, Dabrynia baptised with fire.” Doesn’t sound all gentle like to me!

The Russian imperial officials were beating, threatening and torturing pagans into baptism as late as 1846:
Baptism, Authority, and the Problem of Zakonnost’ in Orenburg Diocese: The Induction of over 800 “Pagans” into the Christian Faith
Paul W. Werth
Slavic Review, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 456-480

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6779(199723)56%3A3%3C456%3ABAATPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4.

Feel free to start writing about those Russian swords any day now, Kolokotronis! :)

[Kolokotronis]

“Some Old Believers might disagree.... if they were still alive to do it. ;)

But seriously, the Russians were not above using force. Why else would there be that famous statement from the Kieven chronicler about the conversion of Novgorod: “Putiata baptised with a sword, Dabrynia baptised with fire.” “

You’re right. I forgot about them! :)

[FormerLib]

As you suggested, the article is rather suspect since it doesn’t even name a single monastery (and we know there is one up there that is a little outside the Orthodox mainstream).

[FormerLib]

Are you (also) under the misconception that the Old Believers were wiped out somehow?

[kawaii]

Paul W Werth is hardly an unquestionable source btw.

He’s also a worse speller.

BTW you never list which Kievan chronicler.

As for the Mari, their account doesn’t appear to be substatiated in the text, and they’ve never been above fibbing in their ethnic disagreements with the Russians. Further there is to this day an offshoot pagan-orthodox religion popular amoung Maris.

The torture they do mention btw is getting old folks drunk.

[Claud]

A Great Council would have the opportunity to condemn this as heresy:

The funny thing about opportunities is that they can go either way. An opportunity to condemn, yes, and an opportunity to not condemn as well. Dare I say, even...(don't be shocked now)....ratify??!

I'm a man of possibilities, I confess! ;)

[kosta50]

Is this a trick question?** Precisely why it is posted for Catholic — Orthodox discussion

It is not a trick question. There is of course a real Bishop of Rome, +Benedict XVI, but he is not canonical the same way that there was a bishop Levebre but he was not canonical.

His Church teaches a different theology which prevents us from being in communion with him. We all know what those issues are and the Monks made a valid remark in my opinion.

The problem with the Pope visiting any Orthodox Bishop would be the same as if a head of state of one country were to visit another country that doesn't have diplomatic relations with the former.

But the Athonite monks are wrong as far as how the Pope was received.

First, the Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as his primus inter pares, with the Bishop of Rome taking precedence in honors over his Apostolic brother in Constantinople, because that was established by the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Second, neither did the Pope nor any of his entourage partake in the Holy Communion at the Divine Liturgy, which was a reminder that, until such time that our theologies are once again one and the same, we may not partake of each others' Eucharistic Gifts (remembering that Eucharist is not a means of achieving, but an expression of unity in faith).

Third, the EP in his speech after the divine service reminded everyone that we are indeed not there yet.

Fourth, the Catholic visitors were treated with the dignity of their Holy Orders which carry Apostolic authority and are independent of our state of non-communion.

When the Pope arrived, one of the Orthodox bishops who greeted him also embraced him as one bishop owuld rembrace another, but an Orthodox priest next to him kissed the Pope's hand (as he would kiss every bishop's hand), and so did many others on his way into the church.

The EP broke no rules. In fact, his reception of the Pope and the Roman delegation was according to the protocol and dignity due to the Bishop of Rome. The EP did not break our state of non-communion but lamented about it, justifiably so.

The Athonite monks are not evil people. They are afraid that the crafty one will fool by deception. That doesn't mean that there are no radicals among them. One thing is certain, the Athonite monks do not represent the Orthodox Church any more than Jesuits alone represent the Catholic in its entirety.

The state of our non-communion is nowhere near resolution which is sad. But that doesn't mean that we cannot act as one Church on those 99% of the issues we theologically share in common.

[vladimir998]

No. They were not wiped out. Many were killed by the Moscovites, however, or killed themselves, in order to avoid being forced to observe the Moscovite observance of Russian Orthodoxy.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Paul W Werth is hardly an unquestionable source btw.”

Irrelevant. The article quotes, and relies upon, a trustworthy enough original source.

“He’s also a worse speller.”

Gees, you are really upset about this one.

“BTW you never list which Kievan chronicler.”

You’re right. Would you complain about his spelling too?

“As for the Mari, their account doesn’t appear to be substatiated in the text, and they’ve never been above fibbing in their ethnic disagreements with the Russians. Further there is to this day an offshoot pagan-orthodox religion popular amoung Maris.”

It is well known enough that the Russians forced their religion on peoples. This is not news to you is it? I mean, seriously, are you going to claim the Russians never forced anyone into baptism?

“The torture they do mention btw is getting old folks drunk.”

That’s torture enough isn’t it? Drinking with Russians can be torture!

[kawaii]

Irrelevant. The article quotes, and relies upon, a trustworthy enough original source.

The article mentions no source, and has 3 mispellings. Try googling the names involved.

[kawaii]

That’s torture enough isn’t it? Drinking with Russians can be torture!

For ethnic Fins??

[kawaii]

It is well known enough that the Russians forced their religion on peoples. This is not news to you is it? I mean, seriously, are you going to claim the Russians never forced anyone into baptism?

Known by un-named Kievan sources who cannot spell.