www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Very Interesting Statements

In an article entitled, "THE CRISIS OF ECUMENISM, ACCORDING TO CARDINAL KASPER"

Here: http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=24524

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity said,
"The cardinal then reviews the situation of relations between Catholics and other Christian confessions.

"We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist," he contends. "At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow."

He continues: "With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion."

Cardinal Kasper points out the tensions within the Lutheran world on the question of ministries as well as tensions in the realm of the Anglican Communion.

Given the above, he believes that over the next few years, ecumenism must progress "at two, or even more, speeds."

However, he cautions, "we must avoid giving the impression of �divide et impera.� We would engage in bad ecumenism if we created new divisions in the other Churches or confessional families, or if we tended to a new form of �Uniatism.�" The latter -- considered a pejorative term in the East -- signifies the Eastern Christians who left the Orthodox Church to join Rome.

"A two-speed ecumenism is something very delicate. However, in the present situation there is no realistic alternative," Cardinal Kasper concludes."

I found this statement most interesting, "At the present stage, it does not seem that constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor"


What are your thoughts?

Dear +Ray,

My own view is that Rome has gone beyond the pale here.

It is clear that currently Rome has done an about-face with respect to Orthodoxy and has taken a very aggressive stance against it.

Rome always knew how the Orthodox Churches are organized and that it has no "pope" as Rome does with full centralized control.

Rome is basically saying that the only acceptable ecclesiology is that of Rome.

If Rome is going to be that way, it should get out of the ecumenism business and stick to catechising its own communicants, bringing them back to church, finding ways to serve communities that have no priests, filling up its seminaries and monasteries etc.

Alex

Orthodox ecclesiology certainly differs from that of both Catholicism and Protestantism.

Orthodoxy places a much greater emphasis on unity of faith than administrative unity.

Certainly, Orthodoxy rejects both the centralism of Catholicism and the theological anarchism of Protestantism.

Of course, the Orthodox way is anathema to both Catholiicism and Protestantism, but it is our saving grace; it is the legitimate way of the legitimate Orthodox Eastern Churches. The West should reject the idea that we have any need to conform to the ways of the West, which certainly meet the needs of Catholics and Protestants, but are, as all knowledgeable people know, inimical to the legitimate Orthodox way.

The crown and splendor of Orthodoxy is the fact that we are a Communion of Churches that share the same Eucharist and Faith. Of course, this is an ecclesiastical reality that the centralized West finds incomprehensible; but it suits our needs and certainly is reflective of the Greek mentality and Eastern mindset. Since we are of the East, what would one expect but the manifestation of the Graeco-Eastern mindset within legitimate Orthodox communities?

Thank God, the Cardinal is not one of us and, thank God, he has no jurisdiction within our Orthodox communions. Both he and us would become very frustrated with one another.

The Patriarch is still---canonically--the "first among equals" of the legitimate Orthodox Churches. This could change in the the future, but any canonical changes would have to be made via an Ecumenical Council. Don't hold your breath, though.

The majority of Orthodox Churches still recognize the Patriarchate of Constantinople as being the primatial see of honor within the Orthodox communion.

Perhaps Russia should now hold that primacy.

ER

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

Dear Friends:

The statements by Cardinal Kasper just reflect the fact the Rome likes nice, neet arangments.

It has a very big problem understanding that there is really no administrative unity in Orthodoxy and or Protastantism which can compare to its own.

After all this time, they still have not understood that Ecumunism is not a short-cut to full Christian communion.

When they become frustrated by the lack of progress in these areas they can be a bit snippy.

Best to just leave them alone, understanding comes with time.


defreitas

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: defreitas ]

Dear Jose,

It is just that some of us Eastern Catholics don't like it when Roman "Big Brother" picks on our Orthodox Brothers and Sisters!

We don't like it when he picks on us . . .

And if we don't stand together on this, well, there is a saying in Ukrainian, "He'll think that that's the way things should be . . ."

Alex

I have a different viewpoint on Cardinal Kasper's words. Rome feels an obligation to take the lead in Christian unity -- no one else seems remotely interested in the temporal implications of Christ's statement "that they all may be one".

They would like dialogue with the Orthodox Church but are finding that the "primacy of honor" accorded to Constantinople is toothless. Should Rome start individual dialogues with all the autocephalous churches (thereby cutting off Constantinople at the knees)? How should they treat Moscow?

These are the questions posed by Kasper. Rome is savvy enough to understand that Constantinople would never have the firmness of control over Orthodoxy that the Pope has over the Catholic Church. But they are pointing out that Orthodoxy needs to get its own house in order with regard to primacy of honor.

StevenH,

That is kinda what I read into the Cardinals statements.

It isn't a sin to be ignorant, or even a cultural chauvinist, but if one believes the Orthodox will ever submit to Roman "firmness of control," then one does not understand, at all, the Graeco-Roman mindset. "Firmness of control" certainly is a Latin concept that the free-spirited East would reject.


How long have we remained independent of the power of the papacy?


The historical facts speak for themselves. Do they need an explanation?


The position of Rome reminds us of the chauvinistic European-American who demands that Native Americans bow their backs and necks to a foreign culture, i.e,, kill their souls for the sake of the self-centered desires of that foreign European culture.

Even if the issue of primacy within Orthodoxy is settled, it would mean little, since the primate would have no power to speak unilaterally for the other Patriarchates, autonomous/autocephalic churches, etc., and certainly would have no canonical power to "legislate" or juridicially unite Orthodoxy with the Roman Church.

It seems to me that Catholics continue to err by assuming that the EP is some sort of Orthodox pope. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Roman position is rooted in arrogance and disrespect for Eastern Roman culture. They (typically) are putting their fists in our faces. That has never intimidated us before; why would they presume it will work in our contemporary world?

Rome is making the same mistake the Turks made: It didn't work!

ER

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

My dear Latin Friends,

You yourselves betray something of an inability to go beyond the same rather bureaucratic perspective on church unity that characterizes the Cardinal's statement.

That is fine, no one is denying you your perspective - as long as you could, in time, bring yourselves to admit that there are other perspectives, equally valid and even older than the Vatican's.

The Cardinal demonstrates precisely why unity between East and West CANNOT occur at present.

He shows that Rome has not budged one iota beyond its own perspective on jurisdiction, the very point that led to the break in 1054 A.D.

If "getting your own house in order" means "becoming as Roman as the Romans" in terms of jurisdiction, then that ain't gonna happen.

What is even sadder is that Rome has demonstrated that all its good intentions to the contrary are made of straw - Rome has no intention of meeting the Orthodox "half-way" or anything like that.

Rome isn't ready for union with the Orthodox and with Orthodoxy's Apostolic ecclesiology.

That is fine too. Rome should stay away and keep its nose in its own business for now.

As I suggested, Rome has plenty to do to put its own house in order, in the U.S. and elsewhere.

If it paid attention to the pressing business it has in its own Patriarchate, then it wouldn't have time to go and upset the Churches of the Orthodox East with its ill-advised statements and policy initiatives (Russia).

As for who is "almost in union" with Rome, there is no one, really in the Orthodox world.

Orthodoxy may not have a "pope" (and never will, since it takes very seriously that Christ is its Head), but no Patriarch will break away to sign a union with Rome.

This isn't the seventeenth century and Orthodoxy has a sufficiency of theologians and Churchmen who are more than capable of leading their flocks and defending their positions from a theological and patristic standpoint.

The Vatican has been making many faux-pas of late in the field of Orthodox-Catholic relations.

I think any Catholic has the right to demonstrate "loyal opposition" when a policy or statement has been undertaken by the Vatican that will lead to harm for the Church (see St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine).

My Church opposed Rome on the question of a Patriarchate for the Ukrainian Church. I oppose Rome on its move into Russia.

And I oppose this latest blight on the Catholic Church's otherwise excellent ecumenical record.

Put that in your mitres . . .

Alex

Ephraim Reynolds,

Forgive me if I am wrong! I thought unity just meant that RC's would be able to receive sacraments in an Orthodox Church and Vice-Versa. In addition, unity would mean that the RCC and the Orthodox Churches would work even closer on issues like Aboration and Human Cloning. I was not aware that the RCC wanted to change the Orthodox Churches in anyway.

What is so wrong with allowing each other to receive the Sacraments? What if I had to go to Russia and got deathly ill and needed a priest? Why should I be denied an Orthodox priest? Why should I be denied the precious Eucharist when I travel to Greece, Russia, Syria, Ethiopia, and the rest of the Orthodox countries?

That is what I see as Unity not who has what authority over what Bishop.

Unity of faith must precede unity of sacrament, in Orthodox eyes. Right now there isn't unity of faith -- *Rome* itself admits that (see its letter to the Melkite Patriarch in 1997 when it was stressed that full communion between the Melkites and the Antiochian Greek Orthodox was not yet possible because there was not yet a full correspondence in faith), although often it is the Orthodox who are tagged as being sticklers on that.

Brendan

Cardinal Kasper's unfortunate language notwithstanding, there is nothing new here. Of course, the Eastern and Western Churches have a different ecclesiology. They have a different theology and patrimony. Since the patristic age, they have done so, and they will always continue to do so. Do we really have to be shocked?

Does Rome not really understand the East? Probably not, though there may be some individuals there with some insights and some are learning more.

The "aggressive stance" of Rome toward the Orthodox is much overdone, and is more the result of ignorance and clumsiness than real aggression.

While some might rejoice in the more sublime Orthodox Ecclesiology of the East, it too is not without its problems. Can the Cardinal be faulted for saying that there is no unanimity within Orthodoxy? A glance at the United States directory of Orthodox parishes and institutions will see it divided into two sections, Scoba, and non-Scoba. And then there are some that don't even make the directory at all. Is Orthodox Ecclesiology the model that created this?

Of course it isn't. I am being unfair, and I apologize. I know that the Ecclesiology of communion, sobornost, and "faith" that is central to the Orthodox teaching is not diminished by the lack of communion within Orthodox juristictions. But can the Cardinal be faulted for not "relating" to every Orthodox Church and juristiction in the same even-handed way, when the Orthodox Churches themselves cannot manage this among themselves? Are his words more scandalous than the Orthodox directory? Perhaps the Cardinal is speaking from his own experience, and has learned to understand the Orthodox Churches as they have presented themselves to him?

However, a careless statement which seems insensitive, is not cause for dismissing the Catholic communion as altogether heretical and beyond hope. It is what it is. A careless quote. I notice the context to be an article with casual statements quoted out of their original context and order. Please, let's not get carried way in the meantime.

Elias

"... there are doubts about its primacy of honor."

Honorary titles carry as much authority as the plaque they are written on.

I agree with the comments of Fr. Elias. It may be frustrating for Cardinal Kasper to deal with moving targets of authority. Like the magician's act of three cups and ball, can one tell where real authority/leadership/representation of Orthodoxy is if Orthodoxy doesn't know itself?

Remember folks: He is a German. I work for a German company and knowing who is in control is very important. Economist Thomas Sowell once made the observation that the best Generals in the U.S. were of German descent because of their ability to command the troops. We should also note that the Germans were invited to settle in the Carpathian region (and many other regions) for their contributions and were even granted permission to live according to their own laws in their own communities in order to get them to move in. Can you imagine a German-minded Cardinal taking a peek inside the Orthodox home of church organization? What he sees is a absolute mess, something that would make a German mother embarrassed. I know. Me mother has a lot of German blood in her and things have to work with precision, something my Slavic blood abhors!

Again, the observations from Fr. Elias should make our Orthodox friends reflect on the difficulty of holding ecumenical talks with a communion of churches that can't decide who is in and who isn't in Orthodoxy or who can best represent Orthodoxy - New Rome or Third Rome? From this viewpoint, Cardinal Kasper tells it like it is though the truth may hurt.

It is unfortunate that Orthodoxy is in the situation it is in. The sufferings under persecution (Communism and Islam) didn't do much for its existence. Its martyrs' blood has given great witness to Christ. When the Eastern Catholic Church needs it the most for dialog and example, we are told that we should not exist. We need to get our act together for we have much to loose, including Christianity.


Cantor Joe Thur

Dear Friends,

Cantor Joe's comments on the Germans reminds me of one Catholic professor who said, "No wonder there couldn't be a Roman Pope in Germany - they already had too many "German popes" all over the place."

Monk Elias quoted my phrase about Rome's "Aggressive stance."

While I love being quoted , I think this is entirely justifiable under the circumstances.

Perhaps some of you weren't old enough to live through the situation with Patriarch Josef Slipyj.

It was not pretty, let me assure you. Rome was bending over backwards to be extra and super-sensitive to the Orthodox, courtesy of the rights of the Particular Ukrainian Catholic Church.

The Roman Cardinal's statement was definitely calculated, not casual. Rome never does anything in a casual way, especially not when it comes to ecumenical geopolitics - the reality my spiritual friends!

Add to this the recent "Roman invasion" into Russia, knowing full well what the reaction of the Orthodox would be, and you have the makings of a different policy altogether.

As for unanimity, is there unanimity among Catholics about birth control, women priests, capital punishment? Is there even unanimity about the Immaculate Conception etc.? No, there is not. There is a central administration called the "Vatican" that is consistent. But it can no longer claim to speak for all Catholics, except to say that any Catholic who doesn't agree with it is no longer so.

But ask any Orthodox Christian about the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity etc.

Even without a "Vatican," I bet you will get a wonderfully consistent answer from any of them.

And a German Catholic Bishop was recently given a slap on the wrist for not toeing the Vatican line. Rightly or wrongly, there are many Catholics who "do their own thing" regardless of what Rome says.

And the Orthodox may feel that it is a waste of time speaking with the Catholics who seem to have no time for fasting or other ascetical practices that are normative in Orthodoxy.

While Rome may Orthodoxy' lack of a "Vatican" is not a good thing, Rome's centralized control is precisely a continuing stumbling block for Orthodoxy.

What this shows is truly a change of attitude toward Orthodoxy.

I will be charitable in saying that I, for one, would disagree with Orthodox who say it was there all along.

But it is real and it is worrisome.

And not once have I heard anyone say anything about the FACT that Byzantine Catholics in Russia will not be allowed to organize their own Eparchies, presumeably so as not to "offend the Orthodox."

Sorry, Your Eminences, but the cat is already out of the bag on that one!

As the True Calendar Lent begins next week, I ask your forgiveness for anything that may have upset anyone by what I have said, or that has offended anyone's Catholic sensibilities.

I stand with my Orthodox brothers and sisters as I believe all Eastern Catholics should on this score.

(If I am excommunicated, will you Orthodox receive me? Brendan, Orthoman, Ephraim?)

Alex

I tend to agre with StevenH here. I think my friend Alex over-reads the statement. The representative of the Holy See make some observations on process and realities, not a vision of what the Church should be. Ephrian notes "It seems to me that Catholics continue to err by assuming that the EP is some sort of Orthodox pope. Nothing could be farther from the truth." I think that is what the cardinal, more moderately is saying, so I don't see why the disagreement. The Cardinal is pointing out the reality that the Catholic Church has persued ecumenism with the Orthodox in a fashion that presumes a structure that is not true in fact; therefore, the Catholic Church must adjust its actions.

I would also hope the rare pastoral situation of communion of folks on their deathbed without access to a minister of their own church not be seen as the end all of ecumenism