Posted on 10/24/2008 4:53:57 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 24, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The intervention from Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople at the synod of bishops marked an ecumenical milestone, says a representative of the Orthodox Church of Greece.
Archimandrite Ignatios Sotiriadis is a fraternal delegate at the world Synod of Bishops on the Word of God, which ends Sunday.
The Church of Greece representative spoke with ZENIT about the intervention from Bartholomew I, given as a homily Oct. 18 in a celebration of vespers together with Benedict XVI.
Q: You have been participating in the entire synod. What have you heard from the synod fathers about Bartholomew I's homily?
Archimandrite Ignatios: First of all, I feel proud to see His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in the Sistine Chapel, where popes are elected, also famous worldwide for its artistic value, because I consider the invitation from Pope Benedict to the "primus inter pares" of the Orthodox Church a most great honor.
The event was welcomed by the synod fathers -- all of them were present -- as a true moment of "grace" and in the same way, the Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano has presented it in a headline on the front page.
The patriarch made reference in his homily to the interpretation of the Word of God-Divine Word, according to the teaching and the writings of the fathers of the Church. It was a magisterial homily, since it presented the position of the Orthodox Church on the discussion, inspired in the richness of Eastern and Orthodox spirituality.
It was a historical event, in which a Pope celebrates vespers before the representatives of the entire Catholic episcopate and on this occasion, doesn't exercise his ministry as teacher, but concedes it to the second bishop of the Church when it was not yet divided.
What most impressed me was what the Pope said when the patriarch's homily, received with long applause, was over: "If we have common fathers, how can we not be brothers?"
Q: The synod fathers have commented on the mediation of the patriarch. In particular, they were impressed by the passage in which he explained how to "see" the Word of God through icons, expression of the incarnation of God, and in creation, highlighting the importance of protecting it, as respect for the divine Logos.
Archimandrite Ignatios: The ecumenical patriarch is known for his passion and his tireless commitment at the ecological level and the synod fathers have much appreciated his contribution to a discussion of maximum importance and current value, in which the Church should be a protagonist.
Q: But the great novelty, perhaps, has not been the patriarch's intervention, but rather the desire of the Pope, expressed at the end of vespers, to include the patriarch's proposals in the synodal proposals. This is an initiative that appears to have been welcomed by the synod fathers. In this way, for the first time in history, the magisterium of an ecumenical patriarch could be taken up by the official magisterium of the Catholic Church in the postsynodal apostolic exhortation.
Archimandrite Ignatios: When we are united in the Word of God, our path inevitably leads us toward a second stage, which is full unity, that is, a common celebration of the Eucharist. But this will not be reached as much with human efforts as with the breath and will of the Holy Spirit.
Q: Yet those who hope for this unity sometimes see it as something far off …
Archimandrite Ignatios: The separation of the Eastern and Western Church occurred over various centuries; it was not an isolated event in the year 1054, but a long cultural, linguistic process. … I think that the re-encounter will happen in the same way, following a gradual path. We separated slowly, and slowly we will unite. But it is not for us to talk of dates.
What is certain is the desire of the Orthodox Church that the Church of Rome parts with its temporal power and dedicates itself totally to its spiritual mission for the transformation of the world.
Catholic / Orthodox ping!
Ping!
What "temporal power" does the Church have today?
Can anyone explain to me what is meant by this statement? It is a great interview, but I'm a little confused by this.
“SO they said they kind of sort of and heading to reunion?
“
No “kinda, sorta” about it...that’s exactly what this latest event means, though “when” is unknown and frankly not really an issue.
“Can anyone explain to me what is meant by this statement?”
Likely he means the Church of Rome’s claim that the pope has ordinary and immediate local jurisdiction over the entire Church.
“The Orthodox don’t believe the Pope holds such jurisdiction (right?), so why would he not say that they look for the Church give up the claim rather than the actual power?”
Why quibble? Its a problem whether its merely a claim or a reality...and its a total deal breaker.
“Further, isn’t that power - regardless of its existence - a spiritual one? It would seem an odd usage of “temporal” if that is what he meant.”
Seems to me that its the Pope who appoints bishops, from the highest Cardinal right down to the lowliest coadjutor and he can remove them (or any cleric) for any or no reason or because its an ill fated Tuesday. Given the nature of episcopal jurisdiction, to us that’s temporal. For example, the Patriarch of Moscow has no jurisdiction in the Church of, say, Serbia; neither the does the Pope of Rome and we prefer to keep it that way.
Good story, and encouraging. With the ROCOR/MP split resolved and the OCA finally facing up to it’s mess Orthodoxy is showing positive signs. I think there will be a long period of working together before there is an actual reuinification of any sort (which I would be surprised to see happen in my lifetime).
I think “temporal” rules out any reference to spiritual power over the Church. Power over the Church by a churchman is not referred to as temporal.
I can’t figure out what this guy means, however.
“I can’t figure out what this guy means, however.”
You may be right, Vlad, but I can tell you that Orthodox ecclesiology is very territorial. That’s why I thought the fellow must be referring to that sort of jurisdiction. Trust me on this; Orthodoxy doesn’t think the Pope is setting about to reestablish and then expand the Papal States! :)
“Can anyone explain to me what is meant by this statement?”
To which Kolokotronis responded - Likely he means the Church of Rome’s claim that the pope has ordinary and immediate local jurisdiction over the entire Church.
I find freeper frankbaum's question to be well thought out and excellently posed. This is not about quibbling but you are right that in the eyes of of the Orthodox Church, their 'understanding' is the deal breaker.
Seems to me that its the Pope who appoints bishops, from the highest Cardinal right down to the lowliest coadjutor and he can remove them (or any cleric) for any or no reason or because its an ill fated Tuesday.
Nothing could be farther from the truth!! Where did you get that notion? This week the pope temporarily 'suspended' a bishop who 'adopted' a 28 y/o woman. Notice his immediate reaction was not to remove him. Perhaps this article will update you on how the appointments are made.
Why Doesn't the Pope Do Something about "Bad" Bishops?
The pope appoints bishops based on recommendations. You know only too well the misery we Catholics in Albany have suffered under the RC bishop who has held this office for +30 years.
In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the respective Patriarchs select their own bishops. Out of respect for his petrine office, those names are also submitted to the pope, for his 'additional' approbation. This is a courtesy, not an obligation. The pope, to the best of my knowledge, has never challenged any appointments made by a Patriarch or Metropolitan. My bishop always stops in Rome when traveling to or from Lebanon. The Papal Nuncio was present at his enthronement and read the pope's declaration. The Catholic bishops view this as a great honor and cherish their relationship with both the Patriarch and the pope.
“Nothing could be farther from the truth!! Where did you get that notion?”
Oh, please, NYer. Don’t tell me I have a better and fuller understanding of the ecclesiology of the Latin Church than you do. The pope has the absolute authority to appoint and remove all bishops and even parish priests sua sponte. In fact, NYer, he could remove the Patriarch of the Maronites tomorrow if he wished, though contemplation of the consequences would likely dissuade him from such a course of action.
“In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the respective Patriarchs select their own bishops.”
In Orthodoxy the Patriarchial or autocephallous synods do that. No one plays the role of sole arbiter in Orthodoxy, whether of the whole Church, a Patriarchate or a diocese. The fundamental nature of The Church in the East is concilliar and it is often remarked that the destruction of that concilliarity in those Eastern Churches which submitted to Rome stands as an example and a warning to the rest of The Church in the East of what, among other things, to be wary of when Rome comes courting. It is for this reason that the subject of that Ravenna document of 2007 and the status of the EP at the recent synaxis at Rome is so important to unity on a go forward basis. Just recently I was speaking with a Latin close to these issues and talks who remarked to me that he thought the Latin hierarchy, from the pope on down, fully understands and appreciates the Orthodox position. The problems they anticipate, he says, will come from an uniformed Latin rite laity AND some of the Eastern Rite hierarchy who, rightly or wrongly (I suspect rightly) fear the loss of their positions in the fallout of a reunion of Rome with the Orthodox patriarchates.
“The pope, to the best of my knowledge, has never challenged any appointments made by a Patriarch or Metropolitan.”
If you mean +BXVI, I suspect you are right, otherwise with all respect I suggest a good church history course, NYer. Start with the Ukrainians.
Thank God for that! It is not a right I have ever seen him exercise. If anything, the lamentations of many Catholics 'stuck' with a progressive bishop, out of sync with the Holy See, is far too pervasive. Cardinal Mahony immediately comes to mind. How is this different from the OC?
“How is this different from the OC?”
We don’t get stuck with “unOrthodox” or heretical hierarchs for long. We, the laity, get rid of them, often with the support of the other Orthodox hierarchs. The unlamented Archbishop Spyridon comes to mind.
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.