You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Russian patriarch: meeting with Pope was of great historical significance [CWN]
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t know about anyone else, but I find myself wondering “What happened?”
For many, many years I’ve been hearing fellow Catholics saying that there should be such a meeting … or complaining about the unwillingness of the Russian Patriarch (the current one and the previous one) to meet with the Pope.
Yet somehow now that it has actually happened, I seem to mostly be hearing praise of it from Orthodox posters, and complaints about it from Catholic posters – especially the hardcore traditionalists. And in some posts the complaints are not just against the Patriarch but also against our Pope.
Is it possible that all the expressions of desire for a Pope-Patriarch meeting that I heard over so many years did not really mean anything?
For many, many years I’ve been hearing fellow Catholics saying that there should be such a meeting … or complaining about the unwillingness of the Russian Patriarch (the current one and the previous one) to meet with the Pope.
Yet somehow now that it has actually happened, I seem to mostly be hearing praise of it from Orthodox posters, and complaints about it from Catholic posters – especially the hardcore traditionalists. And in some posts the complaints are not just against the Patriarch but also against our Pope.
Is it possible that all the expressions of desire for a Pope-Patriarch meeting that I heard over so many years did not really mean anything?
K
Kosta
Guest
You know, the situation reminds me of Aesop’s fable on the father, the son, and the donkey. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all the time.I don’t know about anyone else, but I find myself wondering “What happened?”
For many, many years I’ve been hearing fellow Catholics saying that there should be such a meeting … or complaining about the unwillingness of the Russian Patriarch (the current one and the previous one) to meet with the Pope.
Yet somehow now that it has actually happened, I seem to mostly be hearing praise of it from Orthodox posters, and complaints about it from Catholic posters – especially the hardcore traditionalists. And in some posts the complaints are not just against the Patriarch but also against our Pope.
Is it possible that all the expressions of desire for a Pope-Patriarch meeting that I heard over so many years did not really mean anything?
I’ve seen nothing but article after article from bitter, Catholic writers that say things like “Who played whom at the Havana talk?” to “Why this talk was a complete farce and betrays all Ukrainians everywhere.” This is why we’ll be lucky if we can get some kind of fragile union going when the Holy Spirit comes down to Earth on the final days if we’re lucky.
P
Peter_J
Guest
A portion of Pope Francis’ in-flight interview, in which His Holiness speaks about his meeting with Patriarch Kirill, and about His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk’s reaction:
P
Peter_J
Guest
Pope Francis: I’ll begin with the end. I will be present…spiritually. And with a message. I would like to go greet them there at the pan-orthodox synod. They are brothers, but I must respect them. But, I know that they want to invite Catholic observers and this is a good bridge, but behind the Catholic observers I will be praying with my best wishes that the Orthodox move ahead because they are brothers and their bishops are bishops like us.
Then, Kirill, my brother. We kissed each other, embraced, and then a conversation for an hour (Fr Lombardi corrects)…two hours. Old age doesn’t come on its own. (laughs) Two hours where we spoke as brothers, sincerely and no one knows what was spoke about, only what we said at the end publicly about how we felt as we spoke.
Secondly, that statement, that declaration about Ukraine. When I read this, I was a little bit worried because it was Sviatoslav Schevchuk who said that the Ukrainian people, some Ukrainians, also many Ukrainians felt disappointed and betrayed. I know Sviatoslav very well. In Buenos Aires, we worked together for four years. When he was elected – at 42 years old, eh, good man – he was elected major archbishop, he came back to Buenos Aires to get his things. He came to me and he gave me an icon - little like this – of Our Lady of Tenderness. And he told me, ‘This has accompanied me my entire life. I want to leave it to you who accompanied me over the last four years. It’s one of the few things I had brought from Buenos Aires and I keep it on my desk. That is, he’s a man whom I respect and also familiarity. We use “tu” with each other (Editor’s note: “tu” is the informal way of addressing someone in Italian – they speak as friends) and so on.
So, for this it seemed strange to me and I remembered something I said here to you: to understand a piece of news, a statement, you need to seek the hermeneutic of everything.
But, when you said this, it was said in a statement from January 14th, last February, last Sunday…an interview made by brother…I don’t remember…a priest, a Ukrainian priest, in Ukraine it was conducted and it was published. That news, the interview is one page, two, a little bit more, give or take. That interview is on the last page, a little like this. I read the interview and I’ll say this: Schevchuk, in the dogmatic part declares himself to be a son of the Church and in communion with the bishop of Rome and the Church. He speaks of the Pope and his closeness of the Pope and of himself, his faith, and also of the Orthodox people there. The dogmatic part, there’s no difficulty. He’s Orthodox in the good sense of the word, that is in Catholic doctrine, no.
And then, as in an interview like this one, everyone has the right to say his things and this wasn’t done in the meeting, because the meeting, it was a good thing and we have to move forward. This, he didn’t do in the meeting, the encounter was a good thing and we must move forward. This, the second chapter, the personal ideas that a person has. For example, this, what I said about the bishops who move pedophile priests, the best thing they can do is resign. This isn’t a dogmatic thing, but this is what I think. So, he has his personal ideas. They’re for dialoguing and he has a right to have them.
Thirdly…ah, all of what he’s speaking about is in the document, that’s the issue. On the fact of the meeting: the Lord chose to move it ahead, the embrace and all is well. The document. It’s a debatable document and there’s also another addition. In Ukraine, it’s a moment of war, of suffering, with so many interpretations. I have named the Ukrainian people, asking for prayers, closeness, so many times both in the Angelus and in the Wednesday audience. There is this closeness. But the historical fact of a war, experienced as…I don’t know if…well, everyone has their own idea of this war, who started it, what to do and it’s evident that this is a historical issue, but also a personal, historical, existential issue of that country and it speaks of the suffering. And, there I insert this paragraph. You can understand the faithful, because Stanislav told me that so many faithful have written to me saying that they are deeply disappointed and betrayed by Rome. You can understand that a people in this situation would feel this, no? The final document but it is a jotting down of some things. Pardon, it’s debatable on this question of Ukraine. But there, it says to make the war stop, that they find agreements. Also, I personally said that the Minsk accords move forward and are not eliminated. “With the elbows what wasn’t written with the hands.” (Original phrase in Italian: “Con il gomito quello che non e scritto con le mani”)
The Church of Rome, the Pope has always said, ’Seek peace.’ I also received both presidents. Equality, no. And so for this when he says that he’s heard this from his people, I understand it. I understand it. But, that’s not the news. The news is everything.
If you read the entire interview, you’ll see that there are serious dogmatic things that remain, there’s a desire for unity, to move ahead in the ecumenical – and he’s an ecumenical man. There are a few opinions. He wrote to me when he found out about the trip, the encounter, but, as a brother, giving his opinion as a brother. I don’t mind the document how it is. I don’t dislike it in the sense that we need to respect the things that everyone has the freedom to think and in (the context of) this situation that is so difficult. From Rome, now the nuncio is on the border where they’re fighting, helping soldiers and the wounded. The Church of Rome has sent so much help there. It’s always peace, agreements. We must respect the Minsk accords and so on. This is the entirety. But, don’t get scared by that phrase. And this is a lesson that a piece of news must be interpreted with the hermeneutic of everything and not just a part.
Then, Kirill, my brother. We kissed each other, embraced, and then a conversation for an hour (Fr Lombardi corrects)…two hours. Old age doesn’t come on its own. (laughs) Two hours where we spoke as brothers, sincerely and no one knows what was spoke about, only what we said at the end publicly about how we felt as we spoke.
Secondly, that statement, that declaration about Ukraine. When I read this, I was a little bit worried because it was Sviatoslav Schevchuk who said that the Ukrainian people, some Ukrainians, also many Ukrainians felt disappointed and betrayed. I know Sviatoslav very well. In Buenos Aires, we worked together for four years. When he was elected – at 42 years old, eh, good man – he was elected major archbishop, he came back to Buenos Aires to get his things. He came to me and he gave me an icon - little like this – of Our Lady of Tenderness. And he told me, ‘This has accompanied me my entire life. I want to leave it to you who accompanied me over the last four years. It’s one of the few things I had brought from Buenos Aires and I keep it on my desk. That is, he’s a man whom I respect and also familiarity. We use “tu” with each other (Editor’s note: “tu” is the informal way of addressing someone in Italian – they speak as friends) and so on.
So, for this it seemed strange to me and I remembered something I said here to you: to understand a piece of news, a statement, you need to seek the hermeneutic of everything.
But, when you said this, it was said in a statement from January 14th, last February, last Sunday…an interview made by brother…I don’t remember…a priest, a Ukrainian priest, in Ukraine it was conducted and it was published. That news, the interview is one page, two, a little bit more, give or take. That interview is on the last page, a little like this. I read the interview and I’ll say this: Schevchuk, in the dogmatic part declares himself to be a son of the Church and in communion with the bishop of Rome and the Church. He speaks of the Pope and his closeness of the Pope and of himself, his faith, and also of the Orthodox people there. The dogmatic part, there’s no difficulty. He’s Orthodox in the good sense of the word, that is in Catholic doctrine, no.
And then, as in an interview like this one, everyone has the right to say his things and this wasn’t done in the meeting, because the meeting, it was a good thing and we have to move forward. This, he didn’t do in the meeting, the encounter was a good thing and we must move forward. This, the second chapter, the personal ideas that a person has. For example, this, what I said about the bishops who move pedophile priests, the best thing they can do is resign. This isn’t a dogmatic thing, but this is what I think. So, he has his personal ideas. They’re for dialoguing and he has a right to have them.
Thirdly…ah, all of what he’s speaking about is in the document, that’s the issue. On the fact of the meeting: the Lord chose to move it ahead, the embrace and all is well. The document. It’s a debatable document and there’s also another addition. In Ukraine, it’s a moment of war, of suffering, with so many interpretations. I have named the Ukrainian people, asking for prayers, closeness, so many times both in the Angelus and in the Wednesday audience. There is this closeness. But the historical fact of a war, experienced as…I don’t know if…well, everyone has their own idea of this war, who started it, what to do and it’s evident that this is a historical issue, but also a personal, historical, existential issue of that country and it speaks of the suffering. And, there I insert this paragraph. You can understand the faithful, because Stanislav told me that so many faithful have written to me saying that they are deeply disappointed and betrayed by Rome. You can understand that a people in this situation would feel this, no? The final document but it is a jotting down of some things. Pardon, it’s debatable on this question of Ukraine. But there, it says to make the war stop, that they find agreements. Also, I personally said that the Minsk accords move forward and are not eliminated. “With the elbows what wasn’t written with the hands.” (Original phrase in Italian: “Con il gomito quello che non e scritto con le mani”)
The Church of Rome, the Pope has always said, ’Seek peace.’ I also received both presidents. Equality, no. And so for this when he says that he’s heard this from his people, I understand it. I understand it. But, that’s not the news. The news is everything.
If you read the entire interview, you’ll see that there are serious dogmatic things that remain, there’s a desire for unity, to move ahead in the ecumenical – and he’s an ecumenical man. There are a few opinions. He wrote to me when he found out about the trip, the encounter, but, as a brother, giving his opinion as a brother. I don’t mind the document how it is. I don’t dislike it in the sense that we need to respect the things that everyone has the freedom to think and in (the context of) this situation that is so difficult. From Rome, now the nuncio is on the border where they’re fighting, helping soldiers and the wounded. The Church of Rome has sent so much help there. It’s always peace, agreements. We must respect the Minsk accords and so on. This is the entirety. But, don’t get scared by that phrase. And this is a lesson that a piece of news must be interpreted with the hermeneutic of everything and not just a part.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
I have worked on the issue of Christian Unity for a very long time.
The meeting of Francis and Kirill was of seminal importance…decades in the making. God be thanked that it occurred. I rejoice for it as I rejoice in what is being lived in the advancement toward Christian Unity in various areas and with remarkable progression.
Beyond the joint declaration of the Patriarch and the Pope, which had been negotiated, are the personal discussions between the two of them on a way ahead between Catholics and Orthodox. Which they are keeping between the two of them. Which is where it properly belongs in this moment.
Over the years, I have come to have less and less comprehension with the reactions by Catholics in some quarters. Rome is irrevocably committed to the ecumenical movement after finally committing to it in and through the Council Fathers at Vatican II. That was the intervention of the Spirit of the Lord. God be praised.
On the one hand, there are those who cry that “Nothing real is happening” when it comes to dialogue. It is. And it is advancing.
On the other hand, when something is announced, such as the joint commemoration by Lutherans and Catholics of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, people will ask “How can this be?” More than 35 years of theological dialogue is how…conducted by theologians and ecclesiologists and Church historians commissioned by their respective confessions…whose work is then received and implemented by the confessions that commissioned them.
The work of dialogue is not hidden. It is freely available. The paradigm is not hidden. It is openly expressed. The direction is quite clear. And, at the end of the day, the decisions made by Rome and for Roman Catholics will be concluded by those with the power to do so.
I read things cited by people about issues related to dialogue that truly belong to another era. They cite them as though they are unchangeable when, in fact, they are now recognised as superannuated by those who are moving the dialogue forward. Attitudes of the past are left in the past. The history has been re-apprised and is seen and judged now through different eyes and with different conclusions both by theologians and by historians as well.
The theological dialogues are showing us that the prospective future will look less like the recent past and more like what we find in the first millennium. The Joint Commission’s work over the decades makes where we are heading clearer.
Since the Council, we are on a truly wonderful journey toward communion as Pope Saint John Paul II vividly articulated it in Ut Unum Sint and I am happy for those who will get to see with their own eyes the fruition of so much labour and so much prayer and so much sacrifice.
The meeting of Francis and Kirill was of seminal importance…decades in the making. God be thanked that it occurred. I rejoice for it as I rejoice in what is being lived in the advancement toward Christian Unity in various areas and with remarkable progression.
Beyond the joint declaration of the Patriarch and the Pope, which had been negotiated, are the personal discussions between the two of them on a way ahead between Catholics and Orthodox. Which they are keeping between the two of them. Which is where it properly belongs in this moment.
Over the years, I have come to have less and less comprehension with the reactions by Catholics in some quarters. Rome is irrevocably committed to the ecumenical movement after finally committing to it in and through the Council Fathers at Vatican II. That was the intervention of the Spirit of the Lord. God be praised.
On the one hand, there are those who cry that “Nothing real is happening” when it comes to dialogue. It is. And it is advancing.
On the other hand, when something is announced, such as the joint commemoration by Lutherans and Catholics of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, people will ask “How can this be?” More than 35 years of theological dialogue is how…conducted by theologians and ecclesiologists and Church historians commissioned by their respective confessions…whose work is then received and implemented by the confessions that commissioned them.
The work of dialogue is not hidden. It is freely available. The paradigm is not hidden. It is openly expressed. The direction is quite clear. And, at the end of the day, the decisions made by Rome and for Roman Catholics will be concluded by those with the power to do so.
I read things cited by people about issues related to dialogue that truly belong to another era. They cite them as though they are unchangeable when, in fact, they are now recognised as superannuated by those who are moving the dialogue forward. Attitudes of the past are left in the past. The history has been re-apprised and is seen and judged now through different eyes and with different conclusions both by theologians and by historians as well.
The theological dialogues are showing us that the prospective future will look less like the recent past and more like what we find in the first millennium. The Joint Commission’s work over the decades makes where we are heading clearer.
Since the Council, we are on a truly wonderful journey toward communion as Pope Saint John Paul II vividly articulated it in Ut Unum Sint and I am happy for those who will get to see with their own eyes the fruition of so much labour and so much prayer and so much sacrifice.
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
:extrahappy:
I have worked on the issue of Christian Unity for a very long time.
The meeting of Francis and Kirill was of seminal importance…decades in the making. God be thanked that it occurred. I rejoice for it as I rejoice in what is being lived in the advancement toward Christian Unity in various areas and with remarkable progression.
Beyond the joint declaration of the Patriarch and the Pope, which had been negotiated, are the personal discussions between the two of them on a way ahead between Catholics and Orthodox. Which they are keeping between the two of them. Which is where it properly belongs in this moment.
Over the years, I have come to have less and less comprehension with the reactions by Catholics in some quarters. Rome is irrevocably committed to the ecumenical movement after finally committing to it in and through the Council Fathers at Vatican II. That was the intervention of the Spirit of the Lord. God be praised.
On the one hand, there are those who cry that “Nothing real is happening” when it comes to dialogue. It is. And it is advancing.
On the other hand, when something is announced, such as the joint commemoration by Lutherans and Catholics of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, people will ask “How can this be?” More than 35 years of theological dialogue is how…conducted by theologians and ecclesiologists and Church historians commissioned by their respective confessions…whose work is then received and implemented by the confessions that commissioned them.
The work of dialogue is not hidden. It is freely available. The paradigm is not hidden. It is openly expressed. The direction is quite clear. And, at the end of the day, the decisions made by Rome and for Roman Catholics will be concluded by those with the power to do so.
I read things cited by people about issues related to dialogue that truly belong to another era. They cite them as though they are unchangeable when, in fact, they are now recognised as superannuated by those who are moving the dialogue forward. Attitudes of the past are left in the past. The history has been re-apprised and is seen and judged now through different eyes and with different conclusions both by theologians and by historians as well.
The theological dialogues are showing us that the prospective future will look less like the recent past and more like what we find in the first millennium. The Joint Commission’s work over the decades makes where we are heading clearer.
Since the Council, we are on a truly wonderful journey toward communion as Pope Saint John Paul II vividly articulated it in Ut Unum Sint and I am happy for those who will get to see with their own eyes the fruition of so much labour and so much prayer and so much sacrifice.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.