www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Metropolitan Herman (OCA) sends greetings to Pope Benedict XVI

Metropolitan Herman sends greetings to Pope Benedict XVI

Article posted: 4/20/2005 10:50 AM
SYOSSET, NY [OCA Communications] � His Beatitude, Metropolitan Herman, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, sent a congratulatory letter to Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, upon learning of his election as the 265th head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Pope Benedict, the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, succeeds the late Pope John Paul II, who passed away over two weeks ago in Vatican City.

The text of the letter reads as follows.

"I greet Your Holiness with brotherly love in Christ on the occasion of your election as Bishop of Rome and successor to the ancient See of Saint Peter. As you assume the responsibilities and heavy burdens of the ministry with which you have been entrusted, I wish to assure you of my brotherly esteem and prayerful best wishes.

"Your ever-memorable predecessor, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, was greatly respected by many Orthodox Christians throughout the world. It is my sincere hope and prayer that Your Holiness will be inspired by his example and will continue to work for the realization of our Lord�s high-priestly prayer, 'That all may be one' (John 17:21).

"Be assured of my steadfast prayer that Almighty God will bless you with strength and good health, so that you may serve Christ and the flock with which He has entrusted you for many long and fruitful years. As you begin your pontificate, may the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the Saints, intercede for you before the Throne of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal High Priest."

Beautiful letter! Many Years to Metropolitan Herman!

Many years to Metropolitan Herman and may God bless his Church.

Yes, that is a very beautiful letter.

Well, it appears as though I am a late comer to this conversation. I too join my prayers with those of Metropolitan Herman for Pope Benedict XVI. That said, I am placing a lot of trust in the Holy Spirit having guided the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church in electing a sucessor to John Paul II to continue to guide the Church and to open our eyes to the good that will come of this election. It is not easy for me to see where the Church will be lead by this new Bishop of Rome, but we have been told and must have faith that we will not be left alone.

I was at first rather shocked to hear the news of Pope Benedict's election, but I have spent some time in reflection and prayer and decided that the Holy Spirit would not have brought this to be without some reason that I must trust and pray will be for the good of the Church. It is hopeful to me that there is a name change and that we have seen nee Cardinal Ratzinger choose the name Benedict, which I see as a move towards reconciliation of ever more polarized parties within the Roman Catholic Church. That said, his election marks an interesting transition for the Church. Or perhaps it is not so much a transition, but rather an official recogniztion of the way the Church has been run for the past few years; making manifest what has been running the Church from behind already anyway.

While there is certainly no shortage of information about Pope Benedict XVI in the media at present, for me Cardinal Ratzinger is largely defined and can be best understood by his role in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has as its mission to "spread sound doctrine and defend those points of Christian tradition which seem in danger because of new and unacceptable doctrines." Towards this end, Cardinal Ratzinger has been the chief orchestrator of what many in the Church see as an injunction against theological inquiry. Among the numerous CDF documents authored by Cardinal Ratzinger, his promulgation of "Dominus Jesus" most especially made many feel that he intended to reverse the excellent work of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue undertaken by Pope John Paul II. While I have heard many commentators argue that Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II were very similar, I would have to disagree and suggest that they not only had very different charisma, but had a fundamentally different view of theological anthropology.

There is the well known theological controversy which Cardinal Ratzinger has been embroiled in with other cardinals, including his fellow German Cardinal Walter Kaspar, as played out in recent publications. Ratzinger has also capitalized on and fueled a growing trend of conservatism in the Church that has been polarizing individual communities as well as the Church as a whole. I have argued in a recent paper for the Sociology of Religion that one of the dangerous things taking place within Catholicism is the manner in which various parties--conservative and liberal alike--are trying to foreclose the open discussion that characterizes genuine theological discourse. One way in which this is manifest in American Catholicism is an appropriation of symbolic forms that are the legitimate symbolic capital of all Catholics by certain groups who then claim that their way is the only "orthodox" way. It seems to me that the term "orthodoxy," previously determined by one's adherence to the Nicene Creed, is being manipulated for political rather than spiritual reasons. As an enforcer of theological "orthodoxy," Ratzinger and many of his 'fan club' have been influential in circumventing discussion. He has angered Asian bishops and theologians by silencing and censuring their efforts to frame Christian theological truths in the language of 'Eastern' philosophies, especially fruitful among Indian theologians in the last few decades. Several important theologians of the New Theology, which was influential in setting the stage for the Second Vatican Council, including Dupuis, Kung, de Chardin, and others have been silenced by the CDF. Liberation theologians have been foreclosed from their important work of bringing the Gospel message into the streets of the most marginalized of Latin America. And other efforts to push the envelope of theology, such and the recent work on Christology by J. Haight, have also been denied.

It is not so much that nee Cardinal Ratzinger is conservative that is problematic, but what is so dangerous is that until now he has been using the Vatican not as position of referee, but rather as a player in the game. In the classic theological battles between the Jesuits and the Dominicans of previous centuries, the Vatican would respond "play nice boys" when they made appeals to Rome. In recent decades the Vatican has been serving as both prosecution and judge, which is a dangerous combination and forecloses some of the openness that makes the Roman Catholic Church catholic.

For those who are interested, John Allen, the Vatican corespondant for National Catholic Reporter, has written a fairly recent biography Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith, which Allen summarized in a very accessible article (from 1999) on the NCR website. It is my hope and prayer that Pope Benedict XVI will guide the Church in her mission of reaching out to all people and being the ongoing sacramental incarnation of Christ's majestic humility on earth. Having assumed an incredible role, I pray with Metropolitan Herman that Pope Benedict XVI be guided by the Holy Spirit to shepherd the entire Church, making it possible for us all to be united in a single faith in Christ our Lord.

How loving and compassionate this is. May they become close friends.

Andrew as a member of Benedict XVI's fanclub I must disagree with much of what you have said about the Pope, which seems to have been deeply influenced by Allen's portrait of him in the book you mentioned.

When you have theologians who teach panintheism like de Chardin did and a veiled protestanism like Kung does. When you have theologians who teach that what is immoral is actually moral and that the magisterium is wrong. You are not going to be open to allowing open debate on these matters. Where Benedict XVI has intervened in the past he has done so because allowing debates to continue has the potential of destroying the faith of those who listen to those debates. You said that in the past Orthodoxy was once measured by adherence to the Creed, it is still so, but its very difficult to have that with the new theology which has a pantheistic vision of the universe alien to the theology of the Bible and the Fathers. Moreover, the Creed includes the words 'I believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church'. Those who profess those words also profess all those words entail: That the Church and what it teaches are neccessary for salvation.

If you have just written a paper on religious sociology I'd ask you to look again at the degeneration of the religious orders themselves within the Catholic Church. To a great extent it is the so-called new theology that is responsible for the ravaging of traditionally vibrant and orthodox congregations.

There is relatively no difference between the ideaology of Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI. Hence the Church throughout the world i.e. Africa and South East Asia greet his election as a sign of continuity. Dominus Iesus should have come of no surprise to anybody who has read John Paul II's words on the subject or the Catechism of the Catholic Church he asked for. Becuase John Paul used exactly the same language in his encyclical 'ut unum sint'. He refers to ecclesial communions as such and acknowledges only one Church of which the Catholic and Orthodox folds are manifestations of. It was only a backwards step to those who imagined that after 2,000 years the Catholic Church was going to jettison its identity and turn into something akin to the Anglican communion.: Allowing everyone to believe what they want under the same roof. Both John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI called this a false view of ecumenism.

This is why in my opinion only the Orthodox can truly understand Catholic ecumenism.

John Paul the Great berated many Latin American theologians when he visited Latin America for their liberation theology. Of course he did, he's a Catholic, he could not accept that God is not timeless which is an essential part of liberation theology and again goes against our Sacred Tradition. He modified the 'preferential option for the poor' in his own theology in a way that was open and in line with the mind of the Church. Benedict XVI was in agreement with this and will continue this line because the two are loyal Catholics. Trying to create a disjunction between the two men is quite strange. Ratzinger was the Pope's enforcer not the other way around. Indeed, Benedict XVI tried to resign 3 times in the past 15 years and John Paul the Great stopped him every time.

What then can we expect from Benecict XVI? Read his books not the books of others about him and you will find out for yourself.

Bernardo,

Thanks for posting this. It's the first congratulatory letter that I've seen from any of the Orthodox hierarchs.

May God grant Metropolitan Herman many years of health in His Holy Service. His letter was most gracious.

Many years,

Neil

Well, since we have already wandered off topic, I will put my two-cents-worth in. John Paul II had a wonderful outreach to the world and a bigger picture that he pursued. He was, however, not that great an administrator, and even alluded to that himself, on occasion. Benedict is a superb administrator, which I think is something we greatly need at this time. Benedict seems to have no problem with firing people who should be fired, and he is very decisive. There will be no waffling or inattentiveness with this guy. He is brilliant and not much gets by him.

I too hate to stray from the intent of this thread, BUT,

It is time for Roman Catholic America, to come to grips with what it means to be a Catholic in union with the Holy See of Rome.

Andrew wrote, "There is the well known theological controversy which Cardinal Ratzinger has been embroiled in with other cardinals.....", yet the cardinals, without much deliberation, have elected him Pope and therefore find him fit to lead the Church.

Myles wrote,"Ratzinger was the Pope's enforcer". The secular media likes to defines him as such, his position was to uphold, define, and implement the proper teachings of the Catholic faith. Amid the controversy brought on by those who wish to dissent and further change the Church to their liking I believe he did a splendid job, and I'm sure Myles would agree.

I would like to see him serve the Church as long as Pope John Paul II did, but knowing this is not possible I am happy knowing he will be appointing cardinals who will elect his successor.

Viva il Papa, Benedictus XVI!

Bill

btw, The National Catholic Reporter seems to me to have its own overall agenda. I'm glad I don't find it in the book rack in my church.

I do not trust John Allen or the National Catholic Reporter. Sorry, but I consider them both to be heterodox.

If anyone could - or would - recommend a publication available about Eastern Catholicism, I would greatly appreciate it. I know that Byzantine Catholic World is available, and I read the online parts of it at archeparchy.org, but I'm curious if anything else is available.

Again, many years to Metropolitan Herman.

One [cnewa.org] , formerly CNEWA World, is an excellent source about Eastern Catholicism News.