Posted on 09/17/2004 2:47:25 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
So, the Icon of Kazan — or one of many copies of it — has been returned to Moscow as an "ecumenical" gesture, and the results for Christian unity, quite predictably, are these: nothing and none.
As CWNews reported on August 30, 2004: "As a Vatican delegation restored a precious icon to the Russian Orthodox Church, in a heavily anticipated August 28 ceremony, the Holy See emphasized the importance of the gesture, while the Russian Patriarchate downplayed it." Did this surprise anyone?
In his message accompanying the Icon, the Pope insisted that "this sacred icon appears as a symbol of the unity" of Christ’s followers. With all due respect, the symbol of what unity? The Russian Orthodox are as far from Rome today — farther, in fact — than they were in 1054, when the Orthodox schism began.
Russian Patriarch Alexei sniffed that return of the icon was "the first step toward restoring brotherly relations." The first step — after 25 years of "ecumenical dialogue" with the Pope? At this rate of ecumenical "progress," the world will end before the Orthodox return to Rome.
CWN further reported that "in comments to the press after the ceremony, he (Alexei) underlined his insistence that the Vatican must make more concessions to the Orthodox position before further ecumenical progress is possible." There we have it, yet again: for the Orthodox "ecumenical progress" means only one thing — Vatican concessions.
And what concessions does Alexei demand? The same as always: "Alexei II has frequently repeated that the Catholic Church must renounce ‘proselytism’ in Eastern Europe, and accept the Orthodox premise that the countries of that region are the ‘canonical territory’ of the Orthodox churches." That is, Alexei demands that the Catholic Church renounce Her divine commission in Russia, and leave Russia to the Orthodox schismatics. In short, the Catholic Church, says Alexei, must formally approve the schism of 1054. Simply outrageous — but only typical of the way our "partners" in "ecumenical dialogue" behave, ever since the Vatican made the mistake of empowering them by treating them as if they were on equal footing with the one true Church.
CWN notes that (according to AsiaNews service), "while a Lutheran group led by the Bishop of Oslo was given an official role in the ceremony at Moscow’s Orthodox cathedral, the city’s Catholics were not." That says it all. And what it says is this: ecumenism is a joke, an insult to the Catholic Church, and an offense to God Almighty.
Ping
Once again, the shepherd is out schmoozing with the neighbors while the sheep are starving.
St. Andrew Bobola, Pray For Us.
>"And what concessions does Alexei demand? The same as always: "Alexei II has frequently repeated that the Catholic Church must renounce ‘proselytism’ in Eastern Europe, and accept the Orthodox premise that the countries of that region are the ‘canonical territory’ of the Orthodox churches." That is, Alexei demands that the Catholic Church renounce Her divine commission in Russia, and leave Russia to the Orthodox schismatics. In short, the Catholic Church, says Alexei, must formally approve the schism of 1054. Simply outrageous — but only typical of the way our "partners" in "ecumenical dialogue" behave, ever since the Vatican made the mistake of empowering them by treating them as if they were on equal footing with the one true Church."
You cut loose with rhetoric like this, and you wonder why the Orthodox have little interest in reunification with the Roman Church? Maybe the Partriarch of Moscow should have received the icon more graciously, but maybe he did what he did in order not to give the impression that this one gesture was going to make everything alright.
I was listening to the local Relevant Radio station just prior to the return of the icon and, of course, in the happy talk of radioland, the radio host and his interviewee gushed about what might result from the return of this icon. But one statement made by the host really hit me like a hammer. He said, "Is there really a possibility that the Patriarch might GIVE UP HIS PRESTIGE AND SUBMIT TO THE HOLY FATHER?"
I can tell you one thing --if the Patriarch of Moscow, or any other Orthodox Patriarch, is worth his salt, he will not "submit to the Holy Father," and it won't be because he can't "give up his prestige." It will be because he stands by the conciliar and collegial integrity of the Church, the true ecumenicity that is exemplified by the Ecumenical Councils, that existed before the papacy began to exaggerate claims about the jurisdiction, authority, and mandate of the Bishop of Rome.
One thing I agree with about this article -- the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Church in general, is farther from the Roman Church now than it was in 1054. That's partly because, after that point, Orthodoxy and Catholicism began to have different histories. For example, the Reformation never happened in the Orthodox world, so Orthodoxy was never shaped by that challenge. But there are also serious theological issues that have to be resolved -- the filioque, of course, but also some of the stark differences in Mariology, the understanding of the Eucharist, the nature of salvation and the life of the world to come and, last but not least, the authority and jurisdiction of patriarchates, including that of the Bishop of Rome.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Catholicism and Catholics per se. I think that Pope John Paul II is one of the great popes and one of the great figures in history. I watch EWTN often, and especially enjoy Fr. John Corapi. But I am a realist, and I know that the issues that continue to divide Rome and the East are not insubstantial ones, nor are they easily resolved. None of them can be resolved by symbolic gestures. Catholicism and Orthodoxy should continue to dialogue and, God willing, come up with a plan for true reunification that is in line with with the unity that existed in the Church of the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils.
One thing I didn't see in this article, but I've seen in some other ones, is the hope for "the conversion of Russia." Please. Russia was converted in 988. Russia's land was sanctified by the blood of multitudes of martyrs in the twentieth century. That the Church exists in Russia at all after 70 years of communism is a miracle from God. Christ truly did "overcome the world" there. Respect that, and you've made the first step toward the goal of true reunification -- which will not include any kind of submission--except to the will of God.
Actually, there will be plenty of effect.
Patriarch Alexei will fire off another round of invective about "Roman proselytizing", the Russian government will carry out some more petty harassment of Catholic churches, and Walter Kasper will issue a tepid statement expressing "concern and hope for the continuing process of dialogue."
Business as usual, in other words.
The Orthodox will never be able to return to the unity of the Church of Christ unless they reject their errors and submit to the Successor of St. Peter. Bl. John XXIII explains this well in his encyclical Aeterna Dei Sapientia on Pope St. Leo I:
40. But mark this well: unless the faithful remain bound together by the same ties of virtue, worship and sacrament, and all hold fast to the same belief, they cannot be perfectly united with the Divine Redeemer, the universal Head, so as to form with Him one visible and living body. "A whole faith," says St. Leo, "a true faith, is a mighty bulwark. No one can add anything to it, no one can take anything away from it; for unless it is one, it is no faith at all." (35)41. To preserve this unity of faith, all teachers of divine truths—all bishops, that is—must necessarily speak with one mind and one voice, in communion with the Roman Pontiff. "It is the union of members in the body as a whole which makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful, and this union of the whole body requires unanimity. It calls especially for harmony among the priests. They have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank, for there was a distinction of power even among the blessed apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honorable state, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead over the rest." (36)
42. St. Leo, therefore, maintained that the Bishop of Rome, as Peter's successor and Christ's Vicar on earth, is the focal center of the entire visible unity of the Catholic Church. And St. Leo's opinion is clearly supported by the evidence of the Gospels and by ancient Catholic tradition, as these words show: "Out of the whole world one man is chosen, Peter. He is set before all the elect of every nation, before all the apostles and all the Fathers of the Church; so that although there are among God's people many priests and many pastors, Peter governs by personal commission all whom Christ rules by His supreme authority. Great and wonderful, beloved, is the share in its own power which the Divine Condescension assigned to this man. And if it desired other princes to share anything in common with him, never except through him did it accord what it did not deny to others." (37)
(35) Serm. 24. 6 on the Feast of the Nativity, PL 54.207.
(36) Ep. 14. 11 to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, PL 54. 676.
(37) Serm. 4. 2 on the Anniversary of his Elevation, PL 54. 149-150.
When did the papacy begin to exaggerate its claims? It seems that St. Leo was well aware of them.
Don't bother dialoging with the Fatimists, friend. Your post is on the money. Bottom line is, the Roman Church is not the Church it was during the 7 Councils, its not going back to that Church anytime soon and frankly, if union with Rome means putting up with their Fatimists and others of that ilk, we really, truly are better off without them. "Ecumenism" with Rome is a trap for the Orthodox world if its purpose is "submission" to the Pope of Rome.
There, now I'll be reminded that there is no salvation outside the Church of Rome and that I've committed a terrible sin. Perhaps someone has some indulgences to sell?
Here are the supremely salient points, well worth repeating:
I can tell you one thing --if the Patriarch of Moscow, or any other Orthodox Patriarch, is worth his salt, he will not "submit to the Holy Father," and it won't be because he can't "give up his prestige." It will be because he stands by the conciliar and collegial integrity of the Church, the true ecumenicity that is exemplified by the Ecumenical Councils, that existed before the papacy began to exaggerate claims about the jurisdiction, authority, and mandate of the Bishop of Rome.
One thing I didn't see in this article, but I've seen in some other ones, is the hope for "the conversion of Russia." Please. Russia was converted in 988. Russia's land was sanctified by the blood of multitudes of martyrs in the twentieth century. That the Church exists in Russia at all after 70 years of communism is a miracle from God. Christ truly did "overcome the world" there. Respect that, and you've made the first step toward the goal of true reunification -- which will not include any kind of submission--except to the will of God.
ping
Thank you for your excellent post and wonderful, right-on-target points.
Kind of says it all. Sad. Pride is a grave sin, as we all know from our own personal experiences.
And I smell Alexy's hand in this as well.
Brilliant! Hey, it's not without a precedent, and -- you know -- the Church is never wrong.
But if that is true, then there is no reason why the Roman Catholic Church could not return to the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
And if we were true Church then, then we are true Church today. There were instances of non-communication (by papal decrees, the popes were often frustrated because patriarchs and bishops of the east did not "submit" to their wishes and because the popes did not rule the Church) that lasted for decades ("mini schisms") and the Church survived. The Church broke up over papal ambition to be a de facto ruler of the Church instead of its spiritual sheppard. There is a reason why the NT teaches that the master is the servant, and the first is the last. Apprently, not in Rome.
The Orthodox Church celebrates and honors Leo I, the pope who was appointed as the first among equals in the Church by Emperor Justinian, and not by the Synod. Papacy was established by an imperial decree and not by willful submission of the bishops.
ping
The Church never sold indulgences.
The Orthodox Church celebrates and honors Leo I, the pope who was appointed as the first among equals in the Church by Emperor Justinian,
Odd, isn't it, that St. Leo I was appointed head of the Church posthumorously by Justinian? And since when did the Byzantine Emperor have power over the Church? But Leo had no knowledge of the idea that the Supreme Pontiff was merely "first among equals":
And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also ... the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head. Let not him then who knows he has been set over certain others take it ill that some one has been set over him, but let him himself render the obedience which he demands of them: (Leo I, Epistles, 14:12)
Out of the whole world one man is chosen, Peter. He is set before all the elect of every nation, before all the apostles and all the Fathers of the Church; so that although there are among God's people many priests and many pastors, Peter governs by personal commission all whom Christ rules by His supreme authority. (Leo I, Sermons, 4:2)
By the way, where exactly does this "first among equals" come from? Chalcedon states that Leo "ruled as a head over the members [of the Council]". But you say that the Pope did not rule the Church.
Indulgences were never sold. If an indulgence was granted for an act of charity such as almsgiving, it is not being sold.
The whole concept, of course, is absurd and was unknown, at least to any extent, to the Roman Church while it was still part of The One Church.
Now this can all be done, if you will regulate those things that are asked of you with a careful consideration of religion, perceiving and restraining those who, by accepting persons, either make favours in distributing your benefits, or seek to make a profit of an unlawful trade. Concerning this I have written both to the clergy and to the people, both of which letters I have directed to be read to you. But you ought also to bring back and amend that matter according to your diligence, in such a way as to designate those by name to whom you desire that peace should be granted ... I beg you that you will designate by name in the certificate those whom you yourselves see, whom you have known, whose penitence you see to be very near to full satisfaction, and so direct to us letters in conformity with faith and discipline. (St. Cyprian, to the Martyrs, Ep. 10)
Wasn't it around 1095 when one of the Popes, Urban III, first declared an indulgence to convince people to go on a Crusade?
Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance. (Council of Clermont, 1095 AD, canon 2)
I see, and the RCC gained all the wealth from charity (and kept it for the same readon, I suppose). If someone tells you to give (and you know what the NT says about giving alms -- it's not how much but whether you give all,/i. you have is what matters) for the relief of suffering of your loved ones bing flamed in the purgatory "to God's satisfaction," and then tells you that one must give all for it to be worthy of something -- you are right: it's not a sale. It's an extortion. Next thing you will quote (a Roman source always, for sure), is that Luther made up his grievences. You ought to know better. After all Luther was only there. What did he know?
Cyprian? The same Cyprian who was snubbed in Rome as a heretic, whom the pope refused to see, and to whom no accommodations were to be granted in Rome? The same Cyrpian who was teaching that people should depose bishops they don't like? Yeah, he is the same on-again-off-again guy who was a big propoment of imperial papacy one year, only to change his mind the next. Very good source, indeed, sort of like Sen. Kerry -- one never really knows what he really means.
Bad choice of words on my part. Thank you. It was Justinian who recognized the primacy of Rome. He made de jure what Pope Leo I established as fact -- Rome's primacy in the Church -- and thus legitimized Pope Leo I as the "first pope."
Unfortunately your quote from Leo I is his Western view that the east never accepted and does not accept until this day -- which is that Jesus made Peter more than the other apostles. Peter did not act like a pope towards other Apostles, nor was the Church organized around Rome alone -- after all the Church of Antioch was founded by Peter as well, and all her bishops are Peter's successors too.
And since when did the Byzantine Emperor have power over the Church?
Since he could call ecumenical councils, and sign them and make them official despite papal opposition. The emperor also spared no time disciplining all bishops.
By the way, where exactly does this "first among equals" come from?
Where did this "Supreme Pontiff" come from? Not the New Testament for sure!
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.