Pope (Benedict XVI) pledges to end Orthodox Rift

CNN ^ | May 29, 2005 | AP

[kosta50]

BARI, Italy (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI visited the eastern port of Bari on his first papal trip Sunday and pledged to make healing the 1,000-year-old rift with the Orthodox church a "fundamental" commitment of his papacy.

Benedict made the pledge in a city closely tied to the Orthodox church. Bari, on Italy's Adriatic coast, is considered a "bridge" between East and West and is home to the relics of St. Nicholas of Myra, a 4th-Century saint who is one of the most popular in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Benedict referred to Bari as a "land of meeting and dialogue" with the Orthodox in his homily at a Mass that closed a national religious conference. It was his first pilgrimage outside Rome since being elected the 265th leader of the Roman Catholic Church on April 19.

[Destro]

That is because most of the Southern Italians are of Greek ancestry.

[Lion in Winter]

According to my nephew and Orthodox convert, he thinks it would be "fun" to see the RCs accept the stricter Orthodox way of fasting, married priests with children and watching the Pope become JUST the Bishop of Rome, Italy, instead of the ENTIRE world. Oh, and changing the way they view just about everything about "original sin".

He says the Orthodox will not change "one whit" of their beliefs to "blend" with the Pope since the Orthodox believe they are RIGHT.

Now, I will just sit back and watch to see if any sparks fly tonight on FR.

[Lion in Winter]

There you go!! That's the spirit!! Keep up the good work. LOL!!

[Lion in Winter]

Did they go there after the Turks took over Greece?

[Lion in Winter]

Did they wind up there because the Turks took over Greece?

[NYer]

Now, I will just sit back and watch to see if any sparks fly tonight on FR.

You may want to take a nap. I doubt any 'sparks' will be flying here or anywhere else.

According to my nephew and Orthodox convert, he thinks it would be "fun" to see the RCs accept the stricter Orthodox way of fasting, married priests with children and watching the Pope become JUST the Bishop of Rome, Italy, instead of the ENTIRE world. Oh, and changing the way they view just about everything about "original sin".

What was he before he converted?

Please remind your nephew that the Catholic Church is both Western and Eastern. Those of us who attend the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic Church, are no strangers to fasting, are cognizant of married priests (though not in this country) and respect the pope as the successor of St. Peter. Every organization has a CEO - Benedict XVI is ours.

[Destro]

The Greeks have been is Southern Italy since 8 the century B.C. (800 hundred years before Christ).

Magna Graecia (Latin for "Greater Greece," Megalê Hellas in Greek) is the name of the area in ancient southern Italy that was colonised by ancient Greek settlers in the 8th century BCE.

Greek colonies were established in places as widely separated as the eastern coast of the Black Sea and what is now Marseilles, France, and included settlements in Sicily and the southern part of the Italian peninsula. The name Magna Graecia was first used by the Romans to describe foot of the boot of Italy. The latter was so thickly inhabited by Greeks that the area became known as Magna Graecia (Latin, “Greater Greece”).

With this colonisation, the Greek culture was exported to Italy, and soon developed an original civilisation, later interacting with the native Italic and Latin civilisations. Many of the new cities become very powerful and rich, like Kapuê (Capua), Neapolis (Naples), Subaris (Sybaris).

Other cities in Magna Graecia included Taras (Taranto), Lokroi or Locri, Rhegion , Kroton (Crotone), Thurii and Elea.

Although most of the Greeks of southern Italy no longer speak Greek remarkably a small Griko-speaking minority still exists today in Calabria and mostly in Salento. Griko is the name of a language combining ancient Doric Greek, Byzantine Greek and Italian elements, spoken by people in the Magna Graecia region. There is rich oral tradition and Griko folklore.

[Kolokotronis]

"As an historical side note it should also remembered that the east west schism did not happen in 1054 as commonly thought. That was the date where the first breach occurred. But it was a local break in communion between the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople."

Actually, the cracks began even earlier, around the 9th Century.

"The final nail in the coffin so to speak was probably the sack of Constantinople by the fourth crusade. This was a major event whose importance has largely been forgotten in the west. But among many Orthodox Christians, especially in eastern Europe and the Balkans it might as well have happened yesterday afternoon."

You are absolutely right. Stories of the Sack of Constantinople and the creation of a "Latin Patriarchate" in Constantinople with the crushing of our Patriarchate into submission to the Pope of Rome by the sword, like the stories of the Fall of Constantinople in 1452 and the heroic stand of Constantine XI Paleologos on the walls of the greatest city in Christendom, of the priests conducting the Divine Liturgy in Agia Sophia and disappearing with the consecrated Bread and Wine into the walls behind the altar table as the barbarian Turks stormed into the great church were our bedtime stories as children. You bet its real for us! One of the things which makes it hard for us in dealing with Roman Catholics is that they don't know their own history, or if they do, they think because it was a long time ago it doesn't matter. It does matter to us.

"Just as the schism did not occur in one bold stroke reunification may also be more of a piecemeal affair. It might be one of the Middle Eastern Patriarchs that takes the first leap by saying something along the lines of "Acknowledging we have differences in matters of theology, and those are significant, what binds us is greater than what divides us." He could in essence say that doctrinal differences are no longer sufficient to bar restoring sacramental communion between Rome and his branch of the Orthodox faith."

In theory this might have been possible 200 years ago, but is impossible today. Communication is just too good. There will only be a reunion if all the Orthodox Churches in communion with the Patriarchates, the canonical Churches, agree to a reunion. This is not to say that there won't be de facto inter communions; that's already happening in the Middle East, mostly in Lebanon, and even here in America here and there among Melkites, Maronites and Orthodox. The doctrinal differences are in fact very basic in most instances. The ecclesiological differences are vast. In the late 80s and early 90s there were discussions about inter communion with Rome on the basis of economia, but in the end, Orthodoxy decided not to do it, though interestingly, we are doing it with the Oriental Orthodox.

"But at some time in the future I suspect one or more of the Orthodox Churches will decide that they can live with whatever understanding has been reached and go back to the way things were in the first millennium when the east and the west essentially agreed to disagree on some issues while remaining in communion."

On a number of occasions my Balkan brother Kosta50 has opined that all that is necessary for reunion is for Rome to discard the doctrinal and ecclesiastical accretions since the 7th Ecumenical Council. At that point a Great Council of the whole Church could be held to discuss those later dogmas and doctrines and determine whether or not to accept or reject them. For example, if +Augustine had been able to read Greek and had read the works of the Greek Fathers, would he have come up with the doctrine of Original Sin, something different from what the Greek Fathers had taught? If his works had been translated into Greek early enough, would the Eastern Churches have raised a cry over them and reversed them? Now that both Churches have ready access to Blessed Augustine's works, would a Council anathemize them, accept them or nuance them in some fashion. Given the fundamental nature of his doctrines, the theology of the East or the West could change dramatically. In the absence of aggressive Arianism, is the filioque necessary? Isn't it heresy, or at least liable to lead to heresy? What would a council do with the Dictatus Papae? Can anyone honestly believe that orthodoxy would ever, under any circumstances, accept such a thing? Of course not, yet what happens to Roman ecclesiology without it? In any event, I doubt Rome would ever accept such a thing, if only because the Roman theology of Papal Infallibility would prevent such a thing in many areas of theology. In any event, in the world of the 10th century it was easy, given the state of communications then, to "look the other way". That can't happen now. At one point in your post you mentioned that there are things going on in the West which the Orthodox might call heresy. There's no "might" about it. An Anglican "unity in diversity" might be acceptable in the West, it would never fly in the East. We simply would not accept apostasy in any part of the Church. We've been through that before. Either we all believe the exact same things, or we don't. If we don't, or if we simply say well, we agree on most if not all of the important things, there will be no reunion. The Orthodox laity would never accept such a thing, even if the hierarchs did and our hierarchs know that without the Axios of the laity, they can't do much of anything for long, certainly not make a reunion stick.

Someday, after perhaps a century of catechesis of the Western Church on its history, on how it got where it is now theologically and ecclesiologically, the people of the Western Church might be in a position to approach Orthodoxy and Orthodox people without those lingering triumphalist sentiments which sound more of the Dictatus Papae than the writings of the Fathers or the pronouncements of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I honestly believe it will take that long and it will in the end depend more on how individual Roman Catholics and Orthodox speak with each other about the Faith than what any hierarch might say or do. +Benedict XVI understands this last point as did +JPII.

Finally, in all sincerity, I must say that the almost constant insisting that "we really believe the same things" evinced by many Romans when speaking with the Orthodox, coupled with this intense drive to convince us that reunion must happen is a bit off putting at this point. Sometimes it seems as if Rome is fixated on this idea (I know it isn't, but sometimes it seems that way)while we are really quite content with the status quo, especially now that most of us aren't hurling anathemas at each other. I've said a number of times that I never go to bed worried that my Irish Catholic relatives are going to Hell and they aren't worried about me. That in and of itself is quite a good state of affairs given our history over the past 800 odd years.

[NYer]

They'll sit around a table and discuss it, just like they will on other issues.

I strongly doubt that. Precedents have already been set. JPII and one of the Patriarchs both read the Creed minus the filioque clause, at the Vatican.

[Kolokotronis]

"According to my nephew and Orthodox convert, he thinks it would be "fun" to see the RCs accept the stricter Orthodox way of fasting, married priests with children and watching the Pope become JUST the Bishop of Rome, Italy, instead of the ENTIRE world. Oh, and changing the way they view just about everything about "original sin"

It would be fun, especially seeing the Roman Catholics go back to fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays and not just for the 50 days of Great Lent, but also for the Apostles Fast in June, the Dormition Fast in August and the Fast of Advent!

"He says the Orthodox will not change "one whit" of their beliefs to "blend" with the Pope since the Orthodox believe they are RIGHT."

As a general proposition I think he's right, but you should understand that on some theological issues, in theory a Great Council of the Whole Church might be able to resolve some dogmatic matters. The problem there won't come from the Orthodox side, it will be the Romans. How do they get around infallibly proclaimed Papal dogmas or those of their own none ecumenical councils (well, actually the latter might be doable)?

[Lion in Winter]

He was Episcopalian and his wife was RC. Now, her sister and her husband are studying Orthodoxy.

Well, remember MOST, RC are not following the same traditions as your group.

As to sparks.... I have seen at least one post which sparked a bit... something about kissing feet and swords. LOL!

[Kolokotronis]

"Any Council of the future would have a fair idea of how their deliberations were being received as they were going along. Obviously instant reactions aren't the same as reception, but it would prevent any outright howlers being adopted!"

Maybe; frankly I think it would be a very dangerous thing to do, which isn't to say it shouldn't be done. Suppose this council does take place. What do the liberals of the West do when +Benedict XVI, the greatest patristics scholar to sit on the throne of +Peter in more than 1000 years, allies himself and "his" cardinals and bishops with the Patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops of Orthodoxy? Conversely, what does the Dictatus Papae crowd do? Is the Western Church ready for a major schism? Does the possibility of such a schism mean that the council either never takes place or is doomed from the start?

[NYer]

Thank you for posting an excellent analysis of the differences that separate the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Still I see the theological hard liners in both churches as being a problem. Both the Catholic and the Orthodox have groups that will oppose anything that does not involve a complete surrender by the other church and an admission to being wrong.

No one in the FR Religion Forum ;-D. You are so right. One thousand years is a long rift to bridge. We've all become rather 'set' in our ways. There are and always will be those on the extreme wings who will never concede any issues. How that will eventually pay out, we can only imagine. It falls into that old axiom:

"You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time but you can never please all the people all of the time".

Just as the schism did not occur in one bold stroke reunification may also be more of a piecemeal affair.

Good point! The precedent has already been set by certain Eastern Churches that have restored full communion with the Magisterium. Though their ranks are small in number, they are fully faithful.

He is the first Pope in countless centuries who has not had the famed Tiara somewhere in his coat of arms. The symbolism of his installation mass was more evocative of the first millennium than the second. And his writings have indicated a high level of discomfort with the centralization of power and authority in Rome.

Once again, you have evaluated the situation and have your finger on the pulse of Benedict XVI. As a cradle Roman Catholic, celebrating the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Church, my biggest concern with regard to decentralization is in turning power over to the bishops. The majority of 'liberal' bishops definitely seek this decentralized power in order that they can concoct the liturgy any which way they so desire. My diocese is run by just such a bishop. Some Roman Catholics here are staunch supporters of decentralization because they want to switch to inclusive language. Here is one area where centralized power prevents such abuse from occuring. They cannot act unless the Magisterium agrees.

It's a two edged sword. The best example to be offered to the Orthodox would be the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs who remain faithful to the Magisterium while running their Churches. It's a win/win situation all around.

Mar Nasrallah Cardinal Pierre Sfeir
Patriarch of the Maronite Church
and Pope John Paul II

[NYer]

Don't forget the Italo-Albanians who, like the Maronites, have never been separated from Rome.

"Southern Italy and Sicily had a strong connection with Greece in antiquity and for many centuries there was a large Greek-speaking population there. In the early centuries of the Christian era, although most of the Christians were of the Byzantine tradition, the area was included in the Roman Patriarchate, and a gradual but incomplete process of latinization began.".
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church

[Destro]

The Bari sailors who took the relics of St. Nicholas to Bari were more than likely Greeks themselves.

[kosta50]

Undoubtedly heartfelt and pious words from +Benedict XVI. What these will translate to in actions I can't foresee

I posted this only because his call to end Schism has gone beyond symbolic gestures of his predecessor. The fact that this is happening this early in his reign suggests that the Pope sees reunion as his number one priority. Neither he nor we may see it, but -- once in motion -- it will be difficult to stop.

After Vatican II, the dialogue with the Orthodox was the first bold move. It was a rocky process. Somewhere along the line, the Roman Catholic Church retracted the excommunication of the EP, and the Orthodox of Cardinal Humbert. That was a significant step towards at least a dialogue.

Our theological differences, by that act of reconciliation, were made "negotiable" and no longer considered "outside of Church" (heresy). The Roman Church eventually included the Orthodox in the salvation, and allowed Orthodox to participate in Roman Liturgy and Communion.

Furthermore, it was stressed that both Churches have the same authority through Apostolic successiion, valid priesthood, and Sacraments. John Paul II then made personal gestures of reconciliation by returning the relics stolen from Constantinople by marauding Crusaders, and apologized for the Crusades.

Most Orthodox Churches, including the EP, responded with invitations to their countries and with EP's visits to Rome and concelebration of the Mass (without the filioque) in Rome. Russia did not and neither did Serbia for their own reasons, but the Pope even visited Greece (99% Orthodox). The issue of proselytizing in another patriarchate and moves to proclaim a so-called Greek-Catholic "patriarch" were setbacks that smacked of renewed "Uniate" expansionism. This issue is not clearly understood by most westerners and the impact of such a "patriarchate" would have been disastrous for the Church.

Contrary to what most Roman Catholics think, we do not expect the Pope to be JUST another bishop. We never did. The Pope was always the leader of the flock and the only reason why the Orthodox are represented by the EP is because we are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome over doctrinal differences.

If Pope Benedict XVI wants to lead the Roman Church to the Church of the 1st millennium he will no doubt remain the universal leader of the Church, but not its ruler. He will no doubt retain his absolute power over the Church of the West, as was before the Schism.

The issue of his infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra will have to be brought in line with his position as the universal leader of the Church and a spokesman for all, in the name of all bishops, the Church as a whole, declared by Ecumenical Councils, and not of his own accord. By proclaiming such decisions in the name of the Church, he will continue to make infallible pronounvcements.

But the full reunion can be possible only when and if the Church, in an Ecumenical Synod, with the Pope or his legate present, agrees to (re)formulate the Faith and the entire Church to agrees with it. Only when we share the same Faith, doctrinally, can we be in communion, partake of the Eucharist, and recite the Creed together.

Roman Catholics must understand that what the Orthodox consider the "Church deciding" does not only involve the hierarchy but the laity as well. The Orthodox laity must accept the doctrinal fusion for it to be valid. The process will involve many spiritual sessions and tough questions for the clergy to answer and explain.

There will be opposition from the left and the right, but I think this Pope, with his statement, has set into a motion something that will be difficult to stop. In doing so, he has expressed his own belief that such a thing is possible and I am sure he did not do this unilaterally and without a nod from the Orthodox primates.

[Kolokotronis]

"In doing so, he has expressed his own belief that such a thing is possible and I am sure he did not do this unilaterally and without a nod from the Orthodox primates."

I have no doubt that he got a nod from Constantinople and Antioch, probably from Alexandria and I wouldn't be surprised if he got one from Moscow too. He strikes me as far to smart to have called for a "synod" without clearing it in advace with our guys. I just wonder what it will lead to.

[kosta50]

I wouldn't be surprised if he got one from Moscow too

When Cardinal Kasper made that announcement, Bishop Kirill (of external Church relations of the MP) was in Bari. EP, Antioch and Alexandria notwithstanding, I would venture to say that fact is significant, since Moscow halds the numerical key to Eastern Orthodoxy.

[kosta50]

I just wonder what it will lead to

I would venture to say that it would lead to negotiations and planning of future steps, sequence of obstacles and hurdles to negotiate, etc.

There will be a long line of preparatory events, sessions and planning strategies, before any synod can convene ad tacke proposed agenda. One century is probably not such a bad timeframe, considering that almost half a century has passed just on caustious approach to this point.

[Kolokotronis]

" I would venture to say that fact is significant, since Moscow halds the numerical key to Eastern Orthodoxy."

Like I said, +Benedict XVI is a very smart man! :)