www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Summit meeting between Pope and Orthodox Patriarchs

Let us pray that it happens!

VATICAN OFFICIAL FORESEES ECUMENICAL SUMMIT WITH ORTHODOX
Rome, Sep. 12 (CWNews.com) - The president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity is working to set up a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow, the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Cardinal Walter Kasper is also exploring the possibility of a summit conference at which the Pope would meet with the heads of the Orthodox churches in one gathering. And in a sweeping interview with the Italian daily La Repubblica , the cardinal said that a joint Catholic-Lutheran document on apostolic succession will be published in October. Noting an improvement in the climate of talks between Rome and Moscow, Cardinal Kasper said that he has encountered no major obstacles in his exploratory talks about a meeting between the Pontiff and Patriarch Alexei. He indicated only that the meeting would probably have to be arranged neither in Rome nor in Moscow, but at some third site.

Plans for a meeting between the Pope and the Russian Patriarch were advanced on several occasions during the pontificate of John Paul II, but in each instance Patriarch Alexei backed away from the project, insisting that the meeting could not take place until the Vatican accepts his demand for an end to Catholic "proselytism" in traditionally Orthodox countries.

Cardinal Kasper told La Repubblica that he thought the Russian prelate's concerns about "proselytism" could be addressed in a carefully crafted joint statement, to be released at the meeting between the two Church leaders. He added that Vatican officials have assure the Moscow patriarchate that "proselytism is not the intention, is not the politics, is not the strategy of the Catholic Church."

The argument over "proselytism" is complicated by the different meanings Rome and Moscow apply to that term. Catholic leaders note that the Church's missionary work is aimed primarily at those (in Russia and elsewhere) who are not now affiliated with any religious denomination. Orthodox prelates contend that the people of Russia and other traditionally Orthodox societies shuld be counted as presumptively Orthodox, even if they never attend religious services.

Continuing his tour of the ecumenical horizon, Cardinal Kasper noted that a joint Catholic-Orthodox theological commission, uniting Vatican representatives with those of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople-- will resume work soon after being dormant for several years. In the longer term, he said, "we could think about a meeting between the Pope and all the patriarchs of the Orthodox churches." At such a meeting, he continued, the most critical task would be to find a mutually acceptable understanding of papal primacy.

Keep on dreaming.

Patriarch Alexei will never accept a meeting with the Pope not because he doesn't want to but because it would not be "politicaly convenient". The ROCOR for example, would take this as an excuse to mantain its own schism and other Moscow Patriarchate Bishops would see this meeting as a sign of weakness from their Patriarch.

Some steps must be taken before. In this case the Vatican should at least convince the UGCC to move its see not to Kyiv but to Donetsk or to other place in order to avoid problems with Moscow if this is the price for a better relationship.

However all lead me to think that our hierarchs will never be happy with anything, they would always think that the Vatican has bad intentions because of the continuous lack of confidence and history between both Churches.

The truth is that the real moves toward unity must not only be political but also religious, the removal of the filioque, the acceptance of the 7 concils as the only universal councils of the Catholic Church, etc.

Who says we the RC should conform to the EO on the Filioque? We aren't going to reject a teaching of our Church just for unity. It isn't worth it. This is why ecumenism is so stupid, you will always have the RCC, and the EOC, even if they unite. You will have some RC's who don't think reunification should happen (like the SSPX, who, while supposedly schismatic from the RCC, have their own bishops, and can consecrate more bishops and priests), and there are Trad EO groups who won't want reunification, and will maintain their own EO beliefs.

I really don't know why the UGCC is moving their headquarters anyway. Seems pointless. Anyone care to enlighten me?

The theological dialogue has proved that the Roman Catholic Church doctrine on the filioque is not really different from that of the Eastern Church since both of them agree that the Father is the only source of the Holy Trinity.

I just refered to the removal of the filioque from the Creed, addition that was arbitrary.

I don't think that the removal of the filioque would compromise the integrity of the Roman Catholic doctrine just as accepting the Primacy of Peter does not compromise the Orthodox faith.

Something in these news is more disturbing, did you read this part?

And in a sweeping interview with the Italian daily La Repubblica , the cardinal said that a joint Catholic-Lutheran document on apostolic succession will be published in October.

I was shocked when I read this, I don't know the nature of the document but an agreement on this issue between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran priestless sectarians devoid of sacraments would demolish the Traditional Christian doctrine on the nature of Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession that is so developped in the Roman Church.

How can there be any Apostolic Succession from the Lutherans who didn't even preserve the "historic episcopate" (Anglican term) and who denied the nature of the priesthood and the mysteries as Apostolic Christians understand it?

The Orthodox will not do that either. However, more things regarding doctrine should be done from the Roman side. The Orthodox have not promulgated new doctrines since the schism.

He is risen. I'm sure that there can be on line meetings that don't have to be made public. If it is not yet obvious the entire world is comming together and his church is no exception.
One day they may come out and say we have been talking for months now and this is what we talked about.

"Who says we the RC should conform to the EO on the Filioque?"

Well, the Orthodox - Catholic dialogue commission in the USA has said exactly that. It's not a question of dogma, it's a question of a word which has been interpolated into the Nicene Creed and does not belong there. We all believe that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos, but that doesn't mean that one Local Church can insert this word into the Nicene Creed.

Incognitus

Mexican:

I'd wait to be further informed about what a joint statement on Apostolic Orders between Rome and the Lutherans actually meant.

An agreement on what Apostolic Orders ARE does not necessarily mean or imply that either side recognizes the other as HAVING them.

If memory does not fail--and it seems to do so more and more frequently--Rome has an agreed statement on the Eucharist with the Anglicans. But Rome has not yet recognized that Anglican Communion Services in the same way as she recognizes the Eucharist in the Orthodox Churches.

It seems to me that agreements, while not easy to come to in the ecumenical dialogues, are a cakewalk compared to the actual day when it comes time to discuss how we make them work in a practical way so that we are one. It seems to me that moving from an agreement on anything is a long way from saying that all the historical and theological barriers are removed and that people may move freely from the Church to what are still termed "ecclesial communities." And is it not also true that Rome still considers most of the Protestant communities "seriously deficient" in terms of actually having Apostolic Orders and the Eucharist?

Beyond all this, there would have to be an examination of the formulas used in actual worship to determine if the agreed statement actually was what the communities actually believed. Having read through the various Services of Communion used in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, it didn't seem to me that there were any references to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. Comparing the different prayers used to the Latin Church's anaphoras showed me that we are still miles apart in a very important area.

In Christ,

BOB

How about this: invite all the patriarchs and heads of local churches, and invite Metropolitan Lavr from ROCOR, too.

There would be some complications: do you invite Metropolitan Herman of the OCA, recognized by Moscow, but not by Constantinople? What about churches of unclear status, like the Macedonian Orthodox, or the UOC-KP?

Maybe the Pope should just invite everyone over for lunch. I mean, who would refuse a free Italian meal?

Dave

maybe they're afraid they'll get bratwerst and sauerkraut? Or worse, some kind of liver pate!

Now, now. Some varieties of liver pate are exquisite!

Incognitus

Mexican, whilst I think it was a monumental mistake to insert the filioque clause without consultation with the eastern patriarch's, as far as I remember Rome initially inserted it into the Creed to root out a heresy that had arisen in the church in Spain at that particular time. I forget what particular heresy but I think it was something to do with the Holy Ghost being less than equal in the context of the Holy Trinity. It was a tool of legitimate suppression of heresy as opposed to arbitrary assertion of supremacy, initially at least. Just a thought.

Yes, especially here in Chicago where the silliness about the "raging" battle over foie gras has emerged from the City Council's Committee on Health public hearings on a proposed bill banning its sale within the City limits, thus exposing the hitherto unknown but expensive (and insensitive says the sponsoring Alderman) culinary taste of the City's elite and filthy rich!

Enjoy [chicagotribune.com]

Fie!

Amado

Dear drewmeister,

As for the UGCC, why shouldn't it have its HQ in Kyiv, the capital of the country?

If the various Protestant and even non-Christian groups can have their HQ there, why not the UGCC?

The Ukrainian Orthodox autocephalous Churches, oops, sorry, the "noncanonical Ukrainian schismatic organizations" greeted Patriarch Husar very warmly in Kyiv - so did the Georgian Orthodox Patriarchal representative who was present at the service.

The ROC demonstrators, many of whom were bused in from other regions, didn't like the UGCC move to Kyiv. They also don't like other expressions of freedom and democracy.

What is it about the UGCC that is just so threatening to the ROC?

That is really the question that should be asked.

Cardinal Kasper's dream is a long way off.

It could become a reality sooner if Rome agrees to Moscow's demand to order the UGCC from Kyiv.

Rome would do this, I suppose, but it then might risk the scandal of the UGCC disobeying!

Alex

I don't think that it was Rome that inserted it into the Creed in Spain, but rather the hierarchy of the Spanish Church. Rome was fairly late in accepting it, and, if I remember right, only through imperial pressure.

As an aside, the Armenian Apostolic Church has their own version of the Creed (which, interestingly, says nothing about from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, thus totally avoiding the issue of the Filioque). You can read it here. [armenianchurch.org] Has this ever been a topic of discussion at any dialogues between the Armenian Church and the Orthodox Church or Catholic Church, or in relations with the other Oriental Orthodox?

Dave

No, not even close!

For it has been written in the Eastern Code of Canons, paraphrasing: any Church sui juris has the right to have its principal See situated in an appropriate City within its defined territory, preferably in that City where its chief hierarch derives his title.

On to Kyiv, my brethren of the UGCC, with or without the recognition of Moscow! (Rome has given the go signal long before in 1991, i.e., when the Eastern Code was promulgated by Pope John Paul II!)

Amado