Pope & Icon of Kazan

[pnewton]

Fr Ambrose:

But for us the unity of the Church and all her government come from the Eucharist. Where there is the bishop, there is the Church - as the Fathers say time and again. There is nothing higher in the Church than the bishop. Bishops may gather in Councils to deliberate on important issues but every bishop is equal at such church events - one man, one vote.

When the Church of Rome is willing to grasp and to implement the orthodox theology of the nature of the Una Sancta, then all questions of church government will be resolved.

We Catholics do not agree that there is nothing higher that the local bishop, but rather accept the primacy of the bishop of Rome. We “get” that Eastern Orthodox churches do not. That is why we must approach each other in humility to dialogue on these matters.

I do not think it will be easy to unify or even possible (as humanly defined) because of pride as well as legitimate theological differences. But God is used to dealing in miracles as well as dealing with stubborn people.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Fr Ambrose:
. . .
When the Church of Rome is willing to grasp and to implement the orthodox theology of the nature of the Una Sancta, then all questions of church government will be resolved.

That sounds like:

Be reasonable. Do it my way.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Joe Kelley:

That sounds like:

Be reasonable. Do it my way.

Yes, you are right. The Orthodox are certain that they have retained the apostolic structures of the Church. That makes it 100% impossible for us to alter them.

Of course from the Catholic side, what we hear is:

Be reasonable: Make your submission to the Bishop of Rome and admit he has universal and immediate jurisdiction over every goatherd in Armenia. The papal way or the highway!

“If someone shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection and direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to Faith and Morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread through the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful: let him be anathema.” The Vatican Council 1869-1870.

“ But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact.** In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power**”
Lumen Gentium, 22, Vatican II.

Until this teaching is radically examined, reunion does not seem likely.

Forums such as this enable us to interact and understand one another better. The situation is better than 50 years ago when mutual apprehension did not allow us to approach one another and discuss differences easily. Thank God that that has now changed.

 

[Antonio_B]

Fr Ambrose:

Phew! You could be Orthodox with a statement like that But I am sure that the Patriarch of the Russian Church will not mind too much. In fact he may even prefer to parley with a less ecumenical Pope.

I am placing something here and it is NOT with the wish to cause any offence to anybody but because it sums up the Orthodox misquiet about the intentions of the Vatican. We see justification for this unease in the treatment of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

In 1997, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom of London, who has actively participated for decades in the ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholics delivered a written report to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In part his report reads:

"Our relationship with Roman Catholicism

“It is time we realised that Rome is only interested in ‘extinguishing’
Orthodoxy. Theological encounters and ‘accords’ on the basis of texts lead us up a blind alley, for behind them there looms a firm resolve of the Vatican to swallow up the Orthodox Church.”

Now that is an amazingly frank statement from a bishop renowned for his life-time participation in ecumencial dialogue and people need to ask: “Why do the Orthodox feel like this? What causes their worries?”

Father, I just don’t get it. Has the Pope, after all, the highest authority in the Church, ever said he would like us “to swallow up the Orthodox Church?” In every statement, and gesture toward Russian Orthdoxy he has been sincere in his desire of a possible union. He even went as far as discussing a possible way to exercise papal authority that other Christians would find acceptable. No other Pope had ever done that. In the meantime the very base of the Pope’s support, loyal orthodox Catholics, are getting very uneasy about the pope’s gestures toward Orthodoxy. So much so that the Pope is neither popular with the Russian Orthodox nor with Catholics who think he has gone too far compromising Catholic unity in an effort to ecumenically reach out for the Christians of the East.

Why would we want to convert the Orthodox to Catholicism, especially given the disarray in our own church? Do we need more than the 1 billion Catholics many of whom do not really practice the faith?

You do not offend me with your statements. I have always respected you and I hope not to offend you with my sincerity either.

I’m also getting tired of the Holy Father apologizing for all the mistakes we have made in the past and yet neither the Orthodox nor the Protestants have bothered to acknowledge their public sins as if they were immaculated conceived while only Catholics made errors in the past. Reconciliation and acknowledgment of wrong doing goes BOTH ways.

Antonio :nope:

 

[Antonio_B]

HagiaSophia:

I fear this opportunity may pass us all by as with the speed of world events upon us all, what is to come from another part of the world upon us, all of Christendom needs a closer reunification of purpose and spiritual strength. The pope appears to be a great deal more patient than I am, of course he has dealt with Russians before, but frankly, reconciliation is a two way street, a mutual getting together. I fear that it is not possible in the present mode of things and I fear both East and West may pay quite dearly for this in the not too distant future. Alexi is an old man, the pope is an old man, they will be beyond this veil of tears, when the price is extracted from Christianity - but our children and our grandchildren may pay quite dearly.

And I also cannot understand what Alexi fears in letting those who wish to worship in Catholic Churches in that part of the world - he knows what athiesm has done over there, one would think that with what he has seen and heard that a million churches couldn’t wipe out the suffering, the sorrow, the martyrs who are no longer among us. East and West - they died for their Christian belief. If we could die together in the gulags and in the prisons, why in heaven’s name can’t we live and worship together. Drives me wild some days, just wild.

Given the tremendous challenges we face today from Islamic terrorism (militant Islam) , secularism, religious indifference, atheism, moral relativism, a liberalism determined to wipe out the sacred, one would think the Orthodox and Catholic churches would want to face the enemy together. Instead, the Orthodox worry about our Church swallowing them. Dear Lord, I just don’t get it! Given the fact that they suffered horribly under the Communists for 70 years, one would think they would be delighted that any atheist in Russia would now want to embrace Christianity in any form. I grieve to know my niece left the Catholic Church but at least she now practices her faith in a Protestant church. What would I want from her, to be a non-practicing Catholic or to be a practicing Protestant?

I fear the next Pope will not care about Alexi that much and may actually go in the opposite direction of John Paul, and then what?

Antonio :crying:

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Antonio B:

Father, I just don’t get it. Has the Pope, after all, the highest authority in the Church, ever said he would like us “to swallow up the Orthodox Church?”

The Orthodox can look at the somewhat cavalier ways with which the Vatican treats its own Byzantine Catholic Churches. That does not inspire confidence. Look at the complaints and demands on behalf of the “patriarchal ministry” made to the Vatican by the Melkite Catholic Patriarch Gregory.

See his concerns here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=166371&postcount=271

In every statement, and gesture toward Russian Orthdoxy he has been sincere in his desire of a possible union. He even went as far as discussing a possible way to exercise papal authority that other Christians would find acceptable.

Do you know what changes have occured in the theology of the papacy because of these discussions?

I fear the next Pope will not care about Alexi that much and may actually go in the opposite direction of John Paul, and then what?

It is helpful to remember that in the Orthodox world Patriarchs do not function as any sort of Eastern Popes. They are bishops of some importance and they have some special administrative powers, such as convening Synods, but that is the end of it. They remain responsible before their flock. As some one has pointed out Catholics are accustomed for decrees to be issued from the Vatican to which they are asked to be obedient. In Orthodoxy it is a bit different and the clergy and the faithfil are involved beforehand…

Here is a useful article, from a Catholic source, explaining the differences between the authority of a Pope and that of a Patriarch and their different relationship to their flocks.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=169347&postcount=304

 

[HagiaSophia]

Antonio B:

I don’t get it either and my fears are the same as yours - another pope, another view, other things on the priority list. Lost opportunities, moments which cannot be recaptured.

And I agree with your other post also, since the entire Kazan matter has arisen, it seems as if many who were willing and anxious to accomplish the end have now said, it’s the last straw. Fuhgetaboutit. There are other things going on in the world. We have managed this far and have done quite well.

The pope appears to be facing more and more opposition from within which is why Kaspar is so anxious - and while his anxiety doesn’t perturb me one whit - we are fast losing the “will” for the Pope to do this. As I said before, reconciliation is a two way affair. I hardly feel this aged and sick old man is a threat to Alexi - it’s not as if when the pope visits Russia, the Orthodox will run screaming out of their churches into ours. I have begun to feel that I must take the advice of the angels at the Incarnation - peace on earth to men of good will, but when you don’t have the “good will” you can’t make peace all by yourself.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

HagiaSophia:

I don’t get it either and my fears are the same as yours - another pope, another view, other things on the priority list. Lost opportunities, moments which cannot be recaptured.

Sophia, one reason, I am guessing, that you don’t get it is because you may be assuming that the Patriarch occupies an equivalent position of power and authority in his Church as the Pope does in his. The fact is that he just doesn’t. Much more than a Pope a Patriarch is the “servus servorum Dei.”

A Pope may announce to his Consistory (is that the right word?): ‘I am going to devote a lot of my time to the pursuit of reconciliation with the Orthodox.’ And the Consistory may say, yes, Holy Father, or no, Holy Father, but by and large the Pope will proceed as he wishes.

It is not like this for the Patriarch. He must consult with his brother bishops, and very importantly, he must listen to the voice of the Spirit speaking through the laity - all of this forms the “pleroma” the fulness of the Church, and apart from them the Patriarch is nothing. Apart from the consent of the faithful he cannot “rule” them. There is NO, NO, NO idea in Orthodoxy of a head bishop who may do and decide anything “non ex consensu fidelium” - that is something known only in Roman Catholicism. If the Russian Patriarch judges that his flock is not ready for these new initiatives of Rome then it is his position to give voice to them as the representative of his people.

Not for the first time in the discussion of this topic I recommend a reading of
The Patriarch’s Role
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…7&postcount=304

 

[HagiaSophia]

Fr Ambrose:

Sophia, one reason, I am guessing, that you don’t get it is because you may be assuming that the Patriarch occupies an equivalent position of power and authority in his Church as the Pope does in his. The fact is that he just doesn’t. Much more than a Pope a Patriarch is the “servus servorum Dei.”

I must admit that it is hard for a Latin Rite to understand it but in reailty few RCC’s recognize that the pope just “cannot” act - very rarely anyway, most of the time he must consult with his curia and “lobby”: his way through documents, instructions etc. And even then, the curia has a way of “losing” paperwork, deferring meetings, etc. , you know how the game is played I’m sure.
Fr Ambrose:

but by and large the Pope will proceed as he wishes.

Sometimes, but more and more, not. This pope and his collegiality are driving most of us wild at times. And the bishops, particularly in northern Europe and the US want more of it. (May God preserve us from the hubris of men).
Fr Ambrose:

who may do and decide anything “non ex consensu fidelium” - that is something known only in Roman Catholicism. If the Russian Patriarch judges that his flock is not ready for these new initiatives of Rome then it is his position to give voice to them as the representative of his people.

In all candor Fr Ambrose, it is my sense that Alexi is far more the problem than anything else. I hope I am wrong, but it’s something I feel. His attitude is often hostile, comes across as ruder than I can say, and I have utterly lost patience with the man. Grrr!
How old is he by the way?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

HagiaSophia:

In all candor Fr Ambrose, it is my sense that Alexi is far more the problem than anything else. I hope I am wrong, but it’s something I feel. His attitude is often hostile, comes across as ruder than I can say, and I have utterly lost patience with the man. Grrr!

I do not understand! After all it was you who originally posted this link in order to help your fellow Catholics understand the restrictions under which the Russian Patriarch has to work… I found it very useful.

213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42030,00.html

How old is he by the way?

75

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

HagiaSophia:

In all candor Fr Ambrose, it is my sense that Alexi is far more the problem than anything else. I hope I am wrong, but it’s something I feel. His attitude is often hostile, comes across as ruder than I can say, and I have utterly lost patience with the man. Grrr

Trying to put this in an Orthodox perspective…

The Orthodox can be said in some ways to look upon Rome with the same jaundiced view as Rome looks upon Canterbury.

For 400 years after Henry VIII created the Church of England independently of Rome, the Pope of Rome would rather have walked on fiery coals than invite any Anglican Archbishop to visit the Vatican. It was not until 1960 that the Pope finally relented and permitted an Archbishop of Canterbury to visit him. That was Geoffrey Fisher.

Now I do not know if people went on and on, as you are now doing about the Russian Patriarch, about the Pope being hostile and rude because he refused for centuries to invite the Anglican Archbishop to come to Vatican City? Or the head of the Lutheran Church? or the Methodist – all of them were persona non grata in the Pope’s own country.

 

[hlgomez]

FR. Ambrose,

Don’t get me wrong, but the way I analyze it, the Orthodox clergy are being paranoid for full Christian Unity? They are too “possesive” of their own turfs?

BTW, who owns the Church–the pope or the Lord?

Pio

 

[JGC]

HagiaSophia:

The doctrines, the sacraments, the core beliefs are the same - although I have to admit they are certainly somewhat differently dressed.

Exactly. Pre Vat II I would have wanted to join for the sacraments but the attitude to non-catholics would have precluded this - The ‘No salvation outside the Church’ - pitched as no salvation outside the visible Roman Catholic Church - this was what was taught on the ground.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

HagiaSophia:

I don’t get it either and my fears are the same as yours - another pope, another view, other things on the priority list. Lost opportunities, moments which cannot be recaptured.

And I agree with your other post also, since the entire Kazan matter has arisen, it seems as if many who were willing and anxious to accomplish the end have now said, it’s the last straw. Fuhgetaboutit. There are other things going on in the world. We have managed this far and have done quite well.

The pope appears to be facing more and more opposition from within which is why Kaspar is so anxious - and while his anxiety doesn’t perturb me one whit - we are fast losing the “will” for the Pope to do this. As I said before, reconciliation is a two way affair. I hardly feel this aged and sick old man is a threat to Alexi - it’s not as if when the pope visits Russia, the Orthodox will run screaming out of their churches into ours. I have begun to feel that I must take the advice of the angels at the Incarnation - peace on earth to men of good will, but when you don’t have the “good will” you can’t make peace all by yourself.

The Pope long wanted to take the Icon back himself. I wonder if this represents a giving up of that ideal and a recognition that the next Pope will have other priorities. While a great gesture, I wonder if it is just a graceful closing of the books?

 

[JGC]

Fr Ambrose:

Trying to put this in an Orthodox perspective…

The Orthodox can be said in some ways to look upon Rome with the same jaundiced view as Rome looks upon Canterbury.

For 400 years after Henry VIII created the Church of England independently of Rome, the Pope of Rome would rather have walked on fiery coals than invite any Anglican Archbishop to visit the Vatican. It was not until 1960 that the Pope finally relented and permitted an Archbishop of Canterbury to visit him. That was Geoffrey Fisher.

Now I do not know if people went on and on, as you are now doing about the Russian Patriarch, about the Pope being hostile and rude because he refused for centuries to invite the Anglican Archbishop to come to Vatican City? Or the head of the Lutheran Church? or the Methodist – all of them were persona non grata in the Pope’s own country.

Hmm, It would be nice if some charitable dialogue could be established for say 10 mins before historical grievences were brought up.

Locally we have moved from mutual vitriolic hostility to cordial discussions in the last 40 years. Not agreement folks, the main protaginists below would disagree on many things however communication channels are open and these churches co-operate in charitable actions and ecumenical services.

theherald.co.uk/news/22859.html

No Orthodox present, they are a bit thin on the ground here
scottishchristian.com/churches/orthodox.shtml

Interesting to note comments about relationship between Alexi & JPII. Here the previous Bishop in Glasgow, Thomas Winning & the previous (Anglican) episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, couldn’t stand each other. Although there was much improvement in Catholic and Anglican relations in their time in England, Cardinal Basil Hume and Archbishop of Cantebury George Carey didn’t get on either!

So who knows who the next patriarch and pope may be, and how they will get on?

 

[HagiaSophia]

Joe Kelley:

The Pope long wanted to take the Icon back himself. I wonder if this represents a giving up of that ideal and a recognition that the next Pope will have other priorities. While a great gesture, I wonder if it is just a graceful closing of the books?

No, not from this pope; he will not surrender his hopes nor his gestures until his dying breath on this matter. Frankly I think if he was on his deathbed and the invite would arrive, I belive he’d leave for Russia in his bathrobe if he had to.

While Putin has assured the pope that he is welcome to visit Russia, the pope will stick by his personal principle of, unless the established church in a state agrees or issues an invite, he will not go. It is his way of showing “collegiality” and respect.

As much s I wish for this visit for his sake if nothing else since he so desires to go, I understand his thinking. There is already enmity and suspicion To further enrage or provoke will get Christianity nothing. At this moment, I suspect he feels like Moses viewing the promised land - I can see it over the horizon, it will come, but I cannot go. I feel so badly for him.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Exactly. Pre Vat II I would have wanted to join for the sacraments but the attitude to non-catholics would have precluded this - The ‘No salvation outside the Church’ - pitched as no salvation outside the visible Roman Catholic Church - this was what was taught on the ground.

I believe you are correct in that opinion.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Fr Ambrose:

Trying to put this in an Orthodox perspective…

The Orthodox can be said in some ways to look upon Rome with the same jaundiced view as Rome looks upon Canterbury.

Now I do not know if people went on and on, as you are now doing about the Russian Patriarch, about the Pope being hostile and rude because he refused for centuries to invite the Anglican Archbishop to come to Vatican City? Or the head of the Lutheran Church? or the Methodist – all of them were persona non grata in the Pope’s own country.

The reasons for the Anglican and Protestant splits were quite different than with the Orthodox I think, and for whatever reason, as Alexi should note, we don’t agree, ,but we do “come together”, and at last reading the countries that the pope has visited have not “fallen” into the Roman camp en masse.
Fr Ambrose:

Now I do not know if people went on and on, as you are now doing about the Russian Patriarch, about the Pope being hostile and rude because he refused for centuries to invite the Anglican Archbishop to come to Vatican City? Or the head of the Lutheran Church? or the Methodist – all of them were persona non grata in the Pope’s own country.

They hated what we stood for and we hated what they stood for and thus enmity and dissension prevented any healing of the breach. Another place and another time frame. It’s time to move into this time and place if anything is to be achieved other than the same ole, same ole.

And as for going “on and on” - I will continue to do so. The invitation to ask the pope to come to Russia, to personally meet, and to present the icon at his age and with his state of health does not seem such a “monumental” gesture to make. I can assure you, if the position of the two men were to be reversed and Alexi wished for whatever reason to go to Rome, say to open that Orthodox church there, do you honestly mean to tell me, that you can say that the Pope would have acted toward, or denied him that visit? I think not.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

hlgomez:

Don’t get me wrong, but the way I analyze it, the Orthodox clergy are being paranoid for full Christian Unity? They are too “possesive” of their own turfs?

Are you aware that the Moscow Patriarchate had a quite healthy bunch of parishes around Milan, Italy? These were Italian converts to Orthodoxy. To the shame (in my opinion) of the Moscow people they abandoned these Italian parishes when they were asked to do so by the Vatican.

So who is "possessive of its Italian turf?

Anyway, after Moscow abandoned the Milan parishes at the Vatican’s request, these Italian parishes became uncanonical and they formed themselves into what is now called the “Synod of Milan.” A web search will turn up information on them.

BTW, who owns the Church–the pope or the Lord?

The Church is the Bride of Christ and she has no earthly head but her Lord.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Fr Ambrose:

I do not understand! After all it was you who originally posted this link in order to help your fellow Catholics understand the restrictions under which the Russian Patriarch has to work… I found it very useful.

Me too and as always Magister does a good job of presentation which makes things “understandable” but I still feel that Alexi, if really serious about this d’tente cordiale could kind of move things along. (sigh)

Someone ought to let him know if he doesn’t already, that the support for this “coming together” is losing a lot of gound from the ranks down under the pope, and the next pope may find himself somewhat constrained.

No one expects full agreement, no one expects “surrender” on any part, maybe it will never “come together”, but not to let the man visit strikes me as well…unfriendly like.

So yes, I understand it, but I don’t like it, and am disappointed deeply that we can’t do better than this.