Cardinal Kasper to meet with Russian Orthodox Patriarch

[Peter_J]

Just look at the quotes of Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev to Mikhail Serdyukov in Voices from Russia and what they are doing to Metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu

Thank you, first of all, for posting the link to that interview. I didn’t read the whole thing, but I read the “Stumbling Blocks” section (if that’s not the part you were referring to, please let me know).

I can see how some of Bishop Hilarion’s statements might turn people off, Protestants in particular, but I tend to agree with him. One of my pet peeves is my fellow Catholics who say things like “You can’t say that dialogue with the Orthodox is on a higher level than dialogue with Protestants. That’s elitist. Every dialogue is on the same level as every other dialogue.” I find it refreshing that Bishop Hilarion is “politically incorrect” enough to say “I would divide this into two main camps, the Orthodox and the Catholics are on one side, whilst the Protestant world is on the other side.” and “Sadly, our only real ally and partner are the Catholics.” etc.

God bless,
Peter.

P.S. I notice you also mentioned “what they are doing to Metropolitan Nicolae Corneanu”. I have no problem with discussing that topic, but I don’t think we need yet another thread about that. So instead, I’m responding to your statement here.

 

[tdgesq]

Thank you, first of all, for posting the link to that interview. I didn’t read the whole thing, but I read the “Stumbling Blocks” section (if that’s not the part you were referring to, please let me know).

I can see how some of Bishop Hilarion’s statements might turn people off, Protestants in particular, but I tend to agree with him. One of my pet peeves is my fellow Catholics who say things like “You can’t say that dialogue with the Orthodox is on a higher level than dialogue with Protestants. That’s elitist. Every dialogue is on the same level as every other dialogue.” I find it refreshing that Bishop Hilarion is “politically incorrect” enough to say “I would divide this into two main camps, the Orthodox and the Catholics are on one side, whilst the Protestant world is on the other side.” and “Sadly, our only real ally and partner are the Catholics.” etc.

Perhaps it was this portion within the “Stumbling Blocks” section:

It is extraordinarily difficult. It seems to me that we should not waste our time in talking of a complete restoration of sacramental communion between the Orthodox and Catholic confessions. This division occurred almost 1,000 years ago, and, in practical terms, it is intractable. I am not confident that there shall ever be a complete solution of this problem.

This is what he teaches his flock. And who might those people be? Let’s take a look at the picture at the bottom of the article:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

A disgustingly reckless statement from Bishop Hilarion. I can’t sum it up any better than Alethiaphile.

I am very sorry to see that said by an Orthodox. It seems to me to doubt God’s power.

 

[bobzills]

Perhaps you could provide a list since this is the third time in the thread you’ve made that claim.

Yes. Certainly, I would be happy to provide you with a brief list as an answer to your question on that point. From what I read on another forum, the Eastern Orthodox are really strongly for reunion with the Roman Catholics. According to the statements of an Orthodox Christian on that forum, it would be very easy to have a reunion but the Catholics are unwilling to compromise on several issues. It would only be necessary for Catholics to compromise and change their teachings on a few points and a reunion could easily take place: For an example of a few of the teachings that would have to change in order that the much desired reunion would take place:

1. the doctrine of papal infallibility.
2. the Pope with administrative control over all bishops, including those of the East.
3. the Pope as not subject to a council of bishops.
4. the filioque
5. purgatory
6. indulgences
7. the “immaculate conception.”
8. original sin
9. baptism by sprinkling
10. Christians are not married by a priest, but by each other.
11. unleavened bread used for the Eucharist
12. use of statues (violation of prohibition against graven images).
13. denial of need for epiclesis in the Eucharist
14. celibacy for priests
15. development of doctrine.
16. separating the Mystery of Chrismation from the Mystery of Baptism.
17. juridical and legalistic view of salvation
18. Halloween Masses, clown Masses, Dracula Masses, balloon Masses, Chines dragon Masses, charismatic Masses, etc.
19. Organ music, guitar music, and other instrumental music played during the liturgy
20. fasting of only one hour before receiving Holy Communion
21. mistranslation of “for many” as “for all”
22. Communion Services conducted by female ministers
23. Catholics do not recognize St. Photius as a Saint.
24. Method of calculating date for Easter
25. Acquiring an Orthodox phronema.
    Actually, there are a few others, but I would prefer to leave this small list for now.
    Thank you.

 

[Peter_J]

A disgustingly reckless statement from Bishop Hilarion.

Hi tdgesq,

I see that, once again, you’ve shown us what kind of attitude Cardinal Kaspar shouldn’t take toward the Orthodox. (Edit: I had added another statement, to try to tie in Eastern Catholicism, the theme of this forum, but it just didn’t work.)

 

[Dan-Man916]

Just to comment on a few:

1. baptism by sprinkling

Why, when it is clear from the Didache that other ways of baptism are valid. Just how,exactly does one do full immersion in the Negev desert?

1. Christians are not married by a priest, but by each other.

Since this has never been a theological issue between East and West (as a priest or Deacon is required to witness it), this isn’t a barrier to unity.

1. unleavened bread used for the Eucharist

Why force a hellenization on the West? Don’t the Orthodox cry foul to Latin’s trying to impose their traditions on the Greeks?

1. use of statues (violation of prohibition against graven images).

As far as I know, the 7th ecumenical council didn’t anathametize statues.

1. celibacy for priests

Again, why, since its foundation in the west goes back to the 3rd and 4th century in the council of Elvira and the canons of Nicea that imposed continence on the clergy. So for the same reason, then why do the Orthodox not chose married priests among their Bishops. Why one is ok and the other is not is illogical.

1. development of doctrine.

It depends upon what one understands as development. The Nicene Creed is a development of doctrine, as it took 3 centuries for the Church to proclaim in the way that She did what was handed down to the Apostles. Development is just that.

1. separating the Mystery of Chrismation from the Mystery of Baptism.

Again, why? It is a development of the West and there is no theological issue with it.

1. Halloween Masses, clown Masses, Dracula Masses, balloon Masses, Chines dragon Masses,

Which are abuses, not doctrines nor liturgical norms.

1. Organ music, guitar music, and other instrumental music played during the liturgy

A western discipline in which our own Bishops have the proper authority to regulate.

1. fasting of only one hour before receiving Holy Communion

Same as above.

1. mistranslation of “for many” as “for all”

Not a doctrinal issue, but a liturgical one that has absolutely no effect on the Eastern Churches and only affects a few vernacular translations such as English and Spanish.

.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dan,

Anyone who uses most of those “issues” as a reason for separation are just disobeying St.Paul’s command to not be factious. One can only pray for them. Such people have no interest in unity. They are hypocrites who complain about Latinizations yet would be just as willing to impose hellenizations on all other Traditions.

I do have a further comment on #21. I agree with you that the “for many” and “for all” issue is not important. But there should be concern because this might indicate a heretical stance from the EO who propose this. If it is a matter of linguistics, that is fine. But if this person is asserting that Christ ONLY died for “many” and not ALL of humanity, then that puts him/her outside the pale of orthodoxy period.

In light of what I just stated, I am interested of brother Peter’s source for this list. Is it an official EO website? If it is, it is rather irresponsible for them to make such a claim (unless, of course, it is only a matter of linguistics). Then again, if it is a matter of linguistics, it should not even make it on such a list as things that need to be changed. It is my impression that the ultimate source of the list is just being factious (granting that the person who made the list may have simply been giving second- or third-hand information).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

Just to comment on a few:]

These were brought up by an Orthodox Christian on a forum. So it is an opinion. If I recall correctly, he said that the Orthodox want reunion, but the Catholics are resisting any compromise on the issues mentioned. There were in addition, several other things mentioned, such as for example, the Orthodox preference for the portrayal of the Mother of God with her Divine Son in her arms and not alone or separate from her Son.

 

[tdgesq]

Actually, there are a few others, but I would prefer to leave this small list for now. Thank you.

Why? If you know what these few items are, then list them all. That way we will know what Cardinal Kasper needs to accomplish to effect unity with the ROC. Is there a reason you aren’t listing all of them?

I take it then that none of the items you’ve listed thus far require any accommodation from the ROC. Are there any accommodations that the Patriarch should make in his discussions with Cardinal Kasper? I take it the answer is “no,” but I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth.

 

[mardukm]

Oops. In my post#70, I mentioned that the list was brothe Peter’s. Rather it was brother Bob’s.

Brother Bob,

I have met many EO who do not believe most of the issues raised by the person from whom you got your list are actually issues that matter. A good percentage of the EO I have met would only count papal jurisdiction as the main hang-up. A smaller percentage would include the issue of papal infallibility, but the greater percentage (of those I’ve met IN PERSON - those I’ve met online is a different story ) understand that papal infallibility is really only an extension of God’s infallibility that the Church as a whole also enjoys, and that this infallibility is exercised for the needs of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother tdgesq,

I take it then that none of the items you’ve listed thus far require any accommodation from the ROC. Are there any accommodations that the Patriarch should make in his discussions with Cardinal Kasper? I take it the answer is “no,” but I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth.

It’s obvious to me that brother Bob is only repeating someone ELSE’s viewpoint. Do you have a reason to assume that he shares the same opinion?

I’ve got a list of things the EO and the ROC in particular have to change for communion to be established, but I don’t want to stir the waters right now since I don’t have the time to discuss/defend them in detail (which would be a cop-out).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[tdgesq]

Dear brother tdgesq,

It’s obvious to me that brother Bob is only repeating someone ELSE’s viewpoint. Do you have a reason to assume that he shares the same opinion?

Indeed I do; from his own posts in fact:

From what I read, they are only asking for Rome to make some minor changes and Rome refuses to accomodate them.

According to what I read, a union with the Orthodox could come about very easily and quickly if the Vatican modfied its view on a few issues.

This is not surprising since the Vatican refuses to budge on several key points at issue.

I asked him what these several key points might be. Here is what he posted:

Yes. Certainly, I would be happy to provide you with a brief list as an answer to your question on that point. From what I read on another forum, the Eastern Orthodox are really strongly for reunion with the Roman Catholics. According to the statements of an Orthodox Christian on that forum, it would be very easy to have a reunion but the Catholics are unwilling to compromise on several issues. It would only be necessary for Catholics to compromise and change their teachings on a few points and a reunion could easily take place: For an example of a few of the teachings that would have to change in order that the much desired reunion would take place:

1. the doctrine of papal infallibility.
2. the Pope with administrative control over all bishops, including those of the East.
3. the Pope as not subject to a council of bishops.
4. the filioque
5. purgatory
6. indulgences
7. the “immaculate conception.”
8. original sin
9. baptism by sprinkling
10. Christians are not married by a priest, but by each other.
11. unleavened bread used for the Eucharist
12. use of statues (violation of prohibition against graven images).
13. denial of need for epiclesis in the Eucharist
14. celibacy for priests
15. development of doctrine.
16. separating the Mystery of Chrismation from the Mystery of Baptism.
17. juridical and legalistic view of salvation
18. Halloween Masses, clown Masses, Dracula Masses, balloon Masses, Chines dragon Masses, charismatic Masses, etc.
19. Organ music, guitar music, and other instrumental music played during the liturgy
20. fasting of only one hour before receiving Holy Communion
21. mistranslation of “for many” as “for all”
22. Communion Services conducted by female ministers
23. Catholics do not recognize St. Photius as a Saint.
24. Method of calculating date for Easter
25. Acquiring an Orthodox phronema.
    Actually, there are a few others, but I would prefer to leave this small list for now.
    Thank you.

If this is somebody else’s list to which bobzills does not necessarily subscribe, then let’s hear it. If he thinks that there is some other list of key points upon which the CC should budge, then I would like to see it. That’s what I asked for to begin with.

 

[bobzills]

I have met many EO who do not believe most of the issues raised by the person from whom you got your list are actually issues that matter. A good percentage of the EO I have met would only count papal jurisdiction as the main hang-up.

Yes, I think that this is the main issue, also.
However, there are other concerns, such as the ones I have outlined in the list above. Would Catholics budge one bit on any of the issues raised?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

Yes, I think that this is the main issue, also.
However, there are other concerns, such as the ones I have outlined in the list above. Would Catholics budge one bit on any of the issues raised?

I don’t know what there is to budge about. We accept such differences as legitimate, non-Churchdividing issues - which is why Eastern Catholics who practice as the EO in those areas that are of concern (according to your source) can commune with Latin Catholics in the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

I don’t think the Catholic Churches are the ones who have to budge on the issue. We are accepting of the differences. It is the ones who are close-minded that need to get with the program and obey St. Paul’s injunction to not be factious over such matters.

Basically, what you (or rather your source) would REALLY be asking is NOT, “will Catholics budge one bit.” Rather, it is, “will you lose your Traditions as Latin Catholics and become Eastern altogether to facilitate reunion?” Some might judge the Latin Catholics to be hard-hearted on the matter. Personally, I would call those who would ask the Latins to lose their identity as sheer and utter hypocrites.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JackQ]

From what I read, they are only asking for Rome to make some minor changes and Rome refuses to accomodate them.

I don’t know if they’re so minor. As I understand it, they demand that we renounce a number of doctrines and practices, including the following:

1. The filioque (simply not reciting it in the Creed will be insufficient);
2. Papal Infallibility as defined in Vatican I;
3. The Immaculate Conception;
4. The use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist;
5. Catholic teaching on divorce and remarriage, and
6. Purgatory.

Only the most “liberal” among the Orthodox would even allow us to hold to these doctrines as a matter of private opinion. Most would insist that we specifically deny them. And how, pray tell, will we be one Church with those who deny the authority of the Pope?

I once was a strong proponent of the reunion of the two Churches. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Orthodox Christians that I have spoken with do not share such a desire, and many of them appear to view the Catholic desire for unity as a sign of a lack of confidence in our own position.

To continue in our fond hope that the entirety of the Orthodox hierarchy will one day see the light and join with us in fraternal communion is actually to compromise our own mission. The best example is the utter passivity with which we confront the situation in Russia. Our policy there will not result in unity, and does not even win us respect. Indeed, we do a disservice to the Ukrainian Catholics who have remained loyal to the rest of us at great personal cost to themselves. The best we can hope for is that the Russian Orthodox Church will abstain from requesting the state to suppress us, which will remain a dicey expectation even if we do everything the Orthodox demand of us.

 

[bobzills]

The best example is the utter passivity with which we confront the situation in Russia. Our policy there will not result in unity, and does not even win us respect.

Perhaps, then it is time for Catholics to show some flexibility and compromise on the issues so that there can be reunion.

 

[tdgesq]

Perhaps, then it is time for Catholics to show some flexibility and compromise on the issues so that there can be reunion.

Which ones? Please suggest a compromise. You parroting yourself over and over again that the CC should be more flexible adds nothing to this thread. What do you think Cardinal Kasper should compromise?

What people here are trying to tell you is that you are on the wrong side of the compromise table. We have compromised and continue to do so. When the RC understood the language problems with the filioque in the East, it did not require the Eastern Churches to include it in the Nicene Creed. In fact, just the opposite.

geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/filioque.html

It was the CC that came together with the Orthodox communion in Raveena in October of last year and agreed upon the terms of the document ECCLESIOLOGICAL AND CANONICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SACRAMENTAL NATURE OF THE CHURCH. ECCLESIAL COMMUNION, CONCILIARITY AND AUTHORITY.

ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=848&tla=en

Well, most of the Orthodox communion agreed. Guess who didn’t. That’s right - the ROC. Guess who their delegate was? Right again - Bishop Hilarion. Would you like to see why he withdrew from the council?

However, a communiqué from the commission, made public at the end of the conference, explained that the head of the delegation from the Patriarchate of Moscow, Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna and Austria, presented his Church’s decision to withdraw from the discussions.

He said his Church was withdrawing because “of the presence thereon of delegates from the Church of Estonia, which has been declared ‘autonomous’ by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, a status not recognized by the Patriarchate of Moscow,” the Vatican press office reported.

This happened, the report continued, “despite the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the agreement of all the Orthodox members present, had offered a compromise solution, that of recording the non-recognition by the Patriarchate of Moscow of the autonomous Church of Estonia.” zenit.org/article-20746?l=english

The content of the document wasn’t the issue. It was the fact that the ROC refused to recognize the delegates from Church of Estonia declared autonomous by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I wonder if this is one of the compromises that Cardinal Kasper would be required to give the ROC, in contravention of the authority exercised by the EP. Like I said, you are on the wrong side of the compromise table.

 

[tdgesq]

double post

 

[JackQ]

Perhaps, then it is time for Catholics to show some flexibility and compromise on the issues so that there can be reunion.

Respectfully, you don’t get it. There’s not going to be reunion as far as the Orthodox churches are concerned. From their standpoint there can only be conversion to Orthodoxy. They do not hold the same high opinion of us as we do of them. They won’t even say that our sacraments are valid.

That said, I’ll put the question to you: as a Catholic are you prepared to renounce Vatican I, the Council of Florence, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? That is, at a minimum, what will be demanded of us for reunion to take place. But we can’t do that because the Holy Spirit protected from error the fathers of the two councils mentioned, and the Holy Father when he defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. That means that to renounce these things we would have to decide that (1) the Holy Spirit did not, in fact, protect the fathers and the Pope from error, or (2) even though the Holy Spirit did protect them from error it’s okay to act as if he did not. If we decide that (1) is the case, we cease being Catholic. If we decide that (2) is the case, then we have decided to accomodate error in the proclamation of the Gospel.

 

[bobzills]

Respectfully, you don’t get it. There’s not going to be reunion as far as the Orthodox churches are concerned. From their standpoint there can only be conversion to Orthodoxy. They do not hold the same high opinion of us as we do of them. They won’t even say that our sacraments are valid.

That said, I’ll put the question to you: as a Catholic are you prepared to renounce Vatican I, the Council of Florence, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? That is, at a minimum, what will be demanded of us for reunion to take place. But we can’t do that because the Holy Spirit protected from error the fathers of the two councils mentioned, and the Holy Father when he defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. That means that to renounce these things we would have to decide that (1) the Holy Spirit did not, in fact, protect the fathers and the Pope from error, or (2) even though the Holy Spirit did protect them from error it’s okay to act as if he did not. If we decide that (1) is the case, we cease being Catholic. If we decide that (2) is the case, then we have decided to accomodate error in the proclamation of the Gospel.

So it is true, then, that Catholics will not budge one bit to promote a reunion along the lines listed above?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Bob,

So it is true, then, that Catholics will not budge one bit to promote a reunion along the lines listed above?

Can you please stop using the collective term “Catholic?” It seems obvious that what you really mean is “Latin Catholic” (Certainly, many of the things on that list do not apply to the Eastern and Oriental Churches). I am not Latin Catholic, and I hope and pray that the Latin Catholic Church does not give up their identity as Latin Catholics just to promote unity, because that would be a false unity.

Blessings,
Marduk