The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
isadoramurta7, Tridemist_Zoomer, FrAnthonyC, L.S. Predy, Mike Allo
6,049 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
2 members (Mickeyb, San Nicolas), 656 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,420
Posts416,920
Members6,049
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#109961 04/13/05 06:50 PM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
M
Marian Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
I've read the following article and thought to share it here.


Source: http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2005/050412.asp

Quote
To End the Schism: The Pope�s Unfulfilled Wish

By Paul M. Weyrich
April 12, 2005

So much has been said about the accomplishments of Pope John Paul II that I felt it useful to comment on one initiative about which he felt very strongly but which did not bear fruit, his effort to achieve unity with the Eastern Orthodox Church. The official biographer of the Pope, George Weigel (who was an NBC commentator for the Papal Funeral), told me years ago when he regularly traveled between Washington and Rome that John Paul II was �virtually obsessed with trying to achieve unity with the Orthodox.�

Coming from an Eastern European country, the Pope was well acquainted with the Orthodox. He had a deep and abiding respect for their liturgical practices as well as their general adherence to basic doctrines, which the Church has held since apostolic times. He once asked the Melkite Patriarch, Maximos V Hakim, how the Western Church could recover the sense of the sacred, which had been lost in the West but had been retained in the East. The Patriarch told him it was a mistake to have the altar facing the people. The Pope�s closest advisor, Cardinal Ratzinger, recently wrote a book saying the same thing.

After the Holy Spirit appeared to the Apostles in the form of tongues of fire on the Feast of Pentecost each Apostle set out in a different direction of the known world. St. Paul, who was not an original Apostle, had persecuted Christians zealously. When he was the pagan Saul, God knocked him off of his horse and warned him that if he wanted to serve Him he must serve the Christian Faith. Saul then was converted and became the Apostle who wrote the letters included in the New Testament Canon. St. Paul�s trips are well recorded. Traditions state that some Apostles traveled to China and India. Because there is no written record of travels taken by most Apostles, we will never know if these traditions are true or were composed by pious Christians eager to confer legitimacy on their communities.

The Church was persecuted in its early years. The most pervasive persecutions were under the Emperor Diocletian, whose goal was to wipe Christianity from the face of the earth. The Emperor�s plan did not succeed completely because Christians were driven underground, where they lived and worshipped in caves, now called the Catacombs. The Emperor Constantine later declared Christianity legal and the state religion, after having a vision of a blazing cross imprinted with the words, �By this sign thou shalt conquer.� Constantine was going to fight the most critical battle of his career for the empire. He adopted the cross as a symbol for his troops and he won. The Church grew around this Christian empire in the East and West. Based on liturgical teaching, Western Christians regularly knelt and genuflected because that was the highest honor to convey to royalty, and because Christ was King. Eastern Rite Christians regularly stood because standing was the proper way to show respect to royalty. More and more the Eastern and Western Churches developed separately but always in communion with one another.

During the latter part of the first Millennium the Catholic Church Hierarchy began disagreeing about rites. The East and West no longer understood one another. In 1054 A.D. the Pope in the West and the Patriarch of Constantinople in the East pronounced mutual anathemas. The Church officially had split. Through the schism, the Roman Catholic Church was established in the West and the Orthodox Churches in the East. They have remained split. Several attempts to reconcile them have resulted in the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Some Orthodox returned to Communion with Rome in Carpatho-Russia, Ukraine and the Middle East, especially Syria and Lebanon. They returned because of the Greek Catholic Churches. That complicated the situation even further. The Orthodox, rather than regarding their Eastern Catholic counterparts as blood brothers with whom to be reconciled, treated Eastern Catholics as the problem, not the solution.

The Pope had many problems dealing with the Orthodox. First, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, where the Pope can speak for the Church, the Orthodox Church consists of many ethnic churches. There is no single authority with whom the Pope could discuss unity. The Patriarch of Constantinople is supposed to be �the first among equals� in the Orthodox Church. But when the Greek Church warmed up to the Pope�s initiatives the Russian Church said no, never, not ever. In fact, as traveled as this Pope was, he really wanted to visit Russia, but the Russian Patriarch refused him. Russian President Vladimir Putin, himself a rather fervent Orthodox Christian, said upon several occasions that as far as he was concerned the Pope would be welcome to visit Russia. He would hardly make that pronouncement when his Patriarch would contradict him and make it clear that John Paul was indeed not welcome in Russia.

I was told by one Vatican official who dealt with these issues that the Patriarch sent a delegation to Vatican City which told the Pope that if he would shut down all of the Roman Catholic Churches in Russia the Patriarch then would consider inviting him to Moscow. (Before the revolution there were hundreds of thousands of so-called Volga Catholics who had been imported from Germany and elsewhere to help Russia develop and who had opened many churches in cities ranging from those along the Volga River all the way to Vladivostok.) After all, the Orthodox delegation argued, Roman Catholics could get everything they needed by becoming Orthodox. The Pope reportedly did not blink an eye. He said to the Russian delegation �and in the United States, most Catholics are Roman Catholics. If I shut down all of the Roman Catholic Churches in Russia, are you willing to shut down all of the Orthodox Churches in the United States? After all, Orthodox Christian can get everything they need from Roman Catholic Churches.� Reportedly the Russian delegation left shortly thereafter. The Cardinal who told me that story is dead now but he was a very active and knowledgeable Prince of the Church, even after his retirement. So I have no reason to believe it isn�t true.
While the Roman Catholics have a tolerable relationship with the Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Catholic Churches which were seen chanting after the Pope�s Funeral Mass (they sang in Greek, �Christ is Risen from the Dead, trampling down death by death and giving life to those who are in the tombs�) have a far more difficult time with the Orthodox. While there are Roman Catholic parishes springing up all over Russia, I know of only one Eastern Catholic Church in Siberia, where the hold of the Central Government is the least effective. The Western part of the Ukraine is dominated by Eastern Catholics. It was they who pushed for the Orange Revolution. In the east the Orthodox Church predominates. A threshold problem is that there are no less than three Orthodox jurisdictions, with two separate Patriarchs, in Kiev and a third, the Russian Patriarch, in Moscow. With whom does Rome negotiate?

One Cardinal whom I met in Rome told me that John Paul II badly wanted those Eastern Bishops added to the roster of his own Bishops because he considered them a counterweight to the American and Canadian Bishops whom he regarded as much too liberal.

Unity with the Orthodox was probably the only main initiative the late Pope took which did not succeed. George Weigel quoted the Pope as saying he even would be willing to give up �jurisdiction.� The Pope names Bishops of not only the Roman Catholic Church but of the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. That has been deeply resented by the Orthodox who say, �See what will happen to us if we enter into communion with Rome.� To attain unity the Pope was willing to return to the ancient practice, still followed by the Orthodox, in which Synods of Bishops elect new Bishops. The Pope only would be informed of the decision. That is the way the Melkite Patriarch was elected a few years ago. He was selected by the Synod of Bishops, who then notified Rome of his appointment. The Patriarch wrote a letter saying he desired to be in communion with Rome, and Rome answered saying it wished to be in communion with the Melkite Church. That was it. I am, as full disclosure should note, a Melkite Greek Catholic. I have seen those documents.

How much weight John Paul II�s successor will give to unity with the Orthodox remains to be seen. If the new Pope comes from Africa or Latin America he may put little or no weight on this question. Indeed the Orthodox may find that John Paul II was their best opportunity for unity; when they had the chance they refused to take it. History rarely offers a second chance.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

� 2004

#109962 04/16/05 12:39 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
Thank you so much this was very interesint insight into the goings on of conversations.

#109963 04/16/05 12:59 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
H
Orthodox Catholic Toddler
Member
Offline
Orthodox Catholic Toddler
Member
H
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Pardon my language, but this is one hell of a comment...
Quote
Unity with the Orthodox was probably the only main initiative the late Pope took which did not succeed. George Weigel quoted the Pope as saying he even would be willing to give up �jurisdiction.�
It would be amazing if this could be verified independently.

+T+
Michael, that sinner

#109964 04/16/05 01:37 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Michael,

I don't know how this might be verified but rumors about this have been floating around for as long as I've been a Catholic. If they are true I would think that some Patriarchs owe God an apology. Don't you?

Dan L

#109965 04/16/05 01:38 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Dear Michael:

I, too, am interested in the outcome of such a verification because it seems somebody has taken Pope John Paul II's "word" out of context.

In going out on a limb, it could be that some observers took a different meaning or intent when the Pope asked the Orthodox their help in defining the role of the "Petrine ministry" and its extent.

This was followed by a colloqium recently held in Rome where Orthodox theologians sat with their Catholic counterparts to begin discussions.

Amado

#109966 04/16/05 03:19 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 542
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 542
There was no possible way that +John Paul II+ of eternal memory could have healed the Schism in his papacy. Such a thing will take many years to resolve.

Orthodoxy today is undergoing great changes of its own and these must play themselves out. Check the link, but be forewarned of two things:

1. The article is most unfriendly to the Moscow Partiarchate.

2. The offensive term "uniate" is used, probably without the author knowing of its derogatory sense.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/baran_tuohy200504150758.asp

#109967 04/16/05 03:33 AM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 218
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 218
What is there that needs to verified? The "jurisdiction" that George Weigel is talking about is simply allowing synods to elect bishops. This is what the Melkites do.

Quote
Originally posted by Marin:
George Weigel quoted the Pope as saying he even would be willing to give up �jurisdiction.� The Pope names Bishops of not only the Roman Catholic Church but of the Eastern Catholic Churches as well. That has been deeply resented by the Orthodox who say, �See what will happen to us if we enter into communion with Rome.� To attain unity the Pope was willing to return to the ancient practice, still followed by the Orthodox, in which Synods of Bishops elect new Bishops. The Pope only would be informed of the decision. That is the way the Melkite Patriarch was elected a few years ago. He was selected by the Synod of Bishops, who then notified Rome of his appointment. The Patriarch wrote a letter saying he desired to be in communion with Rome, and Rome answered saying it wished to be in communion with the Melkite Church. That was it. I am, as full disclosure should note, a Melkite Greek Catholic. I have seen those documents.

#109968 04/16/05 04:53 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
H
Orthodox Catholic Toddler
Member
Offline
Orthodox Catholic Toddler
Member
H
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Would John Paul II have been willing to amend or retract the principle of "Universal Jurisdiction"?

Or was there clearly another meaning to the term jurisdiction as used in the above article?

This is what Vatican I said on the subject:

Session 4 - Chapter 3
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

This is a major obstacle toward reunion of all the Apostolic churches.

If the hierarchs of the church ever decided to jettison this article for any reason, what possible means (theoretically) could be legitimately used to do that?

+T+
Michael

#109969 04/16/05 08:31 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
M
Marian Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
To Marc the Roman:

I posted the article in quote and its author is Paul M. Weyrich. Also you may see the source.

#109970 04/16/05 08:41 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
M
Marian Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 951
Likes: 1
The author if this article says that: 'History rarely offers a second chance'

The history will not have any role in the unity of these sisters Churches. Only God, nothing without God.

The style of this article is strange - at least - for an Orthodox. The Father John Paul II understood better the sensibilities and the realities, being from an Eastern country. He was a man of the peace and love.

Let us pray more and have true love for each others.

May God have mercy upon all of us.

#109971 04/16/05 09:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090
Likes: 15
Quote
Originally posted by Marin:
The author of this article says that: 'History rarely offers a second chance'

The history will not have any role in the unity of these sisters Churches. Only God, nothing without God.
Marin,

Welcome to the Forum and thank you for sharing the article. I agree with your assessment, the reunion of our Churches will happen in God's Time and with His Wisdom, all we mortals can do is pray and not place barriers in the way of it happening, seeking to obstruct God's Will.

The author of the article, Paul Weyrich, is a Proto-Deacon of the Eparchy of Newton of the Melkites and serves Holy Transfiguration Melkite Catholic parish in McLean, VA.

I have to say that I didn't find the piece especially illuminating; the historical explanation of the Schism was simplistic to say the least (e.g., During the latter part of the first Millennium the Catholic Church Hierarchy began disagreeing about rites. The East and West no longer understood one another.) and I'm still trying to understand the bolded text below:

Quote
Some Orthodox returned to Communion with Rome in Carpatho-Russia, Ukraine and the Middle East, especially Syria and Lebanon. They returned because of the Greek Catholic Churches. That complicated the situation even further.
Reports of contemporary events offer nothing new, other than those involving "inside info" attributed to unnamed, deceased sources. All in all, I can't find myself excited by the piece; it's not Proto-deacon Paul's best writing.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
#109972 04/16/05 10:21 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990
Likes: 10
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990
Likes: 10

#109973 04/16/05 10:23 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990
Likes: 10
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990
Likes: 10
I don't know about giving up jurisdiction, but I know as a fact that the late Holy Father JPII, of blessed memory, did ask the Orthodox, "just exactly WHAT do you want the Papacy to be?"

This statement reveals that he was willing to reexamine its role (something I also recall reading in an article) in the hope of unity.

Oh well.... frown

In Christ,
Alice

#109974 04/16/05 10:32 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
Quote
Session 4 - Chapter 3
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
I do not think this article needs much re-interpretation. Principally it needs contextualisation, primarily against the backdrop of the Galicanism Vatican I wished to cramp out and--in terms of East-West relations--against the Council of Sardica and other patristic sources that give the Bishop of Rome power of arbitration between clashing Bishops i.e. St Basil the Great's letters to Rome concerning the appointment of the Bishop of Antioch.

There is no reason to believe, in spite of the strong language, that the article in question needs to be interpreted in terms of day to day management or administration. Reading it soberly with the full breadth of the tradition in mind one can easily bring it into line with the vision of the Sardican Council. In essence the article itself is not an obstacle, its interpretation (or rather a wrong interpretation of it) is an obstacle to East-West ecuemnism. All that needs to be done with this article is explain the precise meaning of jurdistiction and how that fits into the historical context. I think provided everyone comes to the discussion table with uncovered heads and open hearts ecumenical discussions on this particular issue could proceed quite quickly.

Quote
This statement reveals that he was willing to reexamine its role (something I also recall reading in an article) in the hope of unity.
He expressely stated in his encyclical 'Ut Unum Sint' that we should think about re-examining the Papal primacy in light of the model of the first millenium.


"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
#109975 04/16/05 10:42 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990
Likes: 10
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,990
Likes: 10
Quote
I think provided everyone comes to the discussion table with uncovered heads and open hearts ecumenical discussions on this particular issue could proceed quite quickly.
Dearest Brother in Christ, Myles,

You hit the proverbial nail on the head with the above statement! smile

Alice

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5