Moscow patriarchate rejects Catholic-Orthodox statement on papal primacy

[Chellow]

CW News

Moscow, May. 20, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Russian Orthodox Church has officially rejected a doctrinal statement approved by a joint Catholic-Orthodox theological commission at a meeting in Ravenna, Italy last October.

The Ravenna meeting reached agreement that the Bishop of Rome traditionally enjoyed primacy among all the world’s bishops, of both the Eastern and Western churches. While Vatican officials hailed the agreement as an important ecumenical landmark, they cautioned that the Catholic and Orthodox churches have a different understanding of primacy. Indeed the Ravenna document noted “differences of understanding with regard to the manner in which it is to be exercised, and also with regard to its scriptural and theological foundations.”

The Russian Orthodox rejection of the Ravenna statement is not a surprise, since representatives of the Moscow patriarchate were critical of the document when it first appeared. Russian prelates said that the Ravenna agreement implied that the Patriarch of Constantinople was the leader of the Orthodox world, just as the Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. The Moscow patriarchate, which has often contested Constantinople’s leadership, rejected that idea.

In January, Patriarch Alexei of Moscow charged that the Ravenna meeting had been “deliberately orchestrated to exclude the Moscow patriarchate.” In fact, Russian Orthodox representatives walked out of the meeting before discussions began, protesting the seating of a delegation from the Estonian Orthodox Church, which Moscow does not recognize.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not surprised to hear this, as it has long seemed to me the Russian Patriarch has a sense of “primacy” all his own.

 

[shawnbm]

Yes, does not the Russian Church consider itself the “Third Rome” after the Holy See’s fall into heterodoxy and Constantinople’s fall to Islam? It seems this is the real battleground over attempts to reunify the church, and Moscow is feeling more powerful in these days of Putin and close political-church relations.

 

[srp643]

Yes, does not the Russian Church consider itself the “Third Rome” after the Holy See’s fall into heterodoxy and Constantinople’s fall to Islam? It seems this is the real battleground over attempts to reunify the church, and Moscow is feeling more powerful in these days of Putin and close political-church relations.

Russia = Third Rome. Uh, no. The Russian stance only reaffirms that there is no such thing as the “Eastern Orthodox Church”. I consider them all separate and subject to their local governments. They only continue to embarrass themselves and their only lasting hope is the join the One True Roman Catholic Church. Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[jimmy]

Russia = Third Rome. Uh, no. The Russian stance only reaffirms that there is no such thing as the “Eastern Orthodox Church”. I consider them all separate and subject to their local governments. They only continue to embarrass themselves and their only lasting hope is the join the One True Roman Catholic Church. Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church.

The EO have a different understanding of ecclesiology than you do. They understand the Church to be primarily local. They do not claim to have a single person speaking for them. For there to be union with the EO there must be agreement among the various Orthodox Churches. This is how they view themselves. They view themselves as the particular Churches united by one faith. They believe that the fullness of the Church is contained in each particular local Church because the Eucharist is the foundation of the Church.

The same accusation could be made of the Catholic Church if you examine the Catholic bishops saying different things.

Why does everyone expect the Russian Orthodox to agree with Rome or Constantinople? They do represent the majority of the Orthodox Christians so their voice is very important if there will ever be reunion.

 

[shawnbm]

I see the viewpoints on this and I should say that I do not personally consider Moscow the “New Rome”, but I have read about that. It seems to me that the patriarchate in Russia will be a big stumbling block, and a big reason has to do with the Russian Orthodox Church’s feelings that Eastern Orthodox are being actively sought by Eastern Catholics in communion with the Roman See. Have I not read that the Apostolic See has indicated they see no reason to actively prostelytize in Russia due to its view that the Eastern Orthodox Churches form the other “lung” of Christ’s Church (to paraphrase the late Polish pontiff) as fully apostolic and sacramental? If that is the case, then there may be hope for bridging the gap. I certainly hope so, but I question whether changing the Pope’s role in a reunified church is something the Roman Church will want to do, especially in terms of juridical and eccelsiastical issues over approving this and that, like it does in the West as the Patriarch of the West. I don’t think I overstate it in saying that will never fly with the East. Oh well, one can continue to hope and pray for reconciliation. Pax tecum.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well one of the sticking points the Russian Patriarch has is that they hold Roman Catholic property, which was handed over to them by the communist government, after Stalin outlawed Roman Catholicism.

The Patriarch snubbed Pope John Paul II and protested against his visiting Russia.

My guess is he feared that the Pope would ask that the orthodox return the Roman Catholic property they still hold.

Jim