www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Archbishop Pezzi Says Catholic-Orthodox Reunion Could Come Soon

Seraphim,

Undoubtedly, there are doctrinal issues, as well as others, that need to be resolved. The "willingness factor," however, is what makes this resolution possible.

When both parties are sitting at the table as brothers in Christ, and praying for divine guidance to resolve these matters--not as they would have them but as the All-holy Lord God himself would have them--who is to say what can't be accomplished?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Fr. Deacon....

Thank you for being a member of the church in communion with Rome who will admit publically there ARE doctrinal issues...unfortunately too many people "gloss over this"...

There are perceived doctrinal issues. That does not mean they are real or substantive. Really, some people seem intent on creating stumbling blocks rather than removing them.

Interestingly, Archbishop Hilarion of Volokalamsk is currently making his first visit to the Vatican as the new president of the Department for External Church Affairs of the Patriarchate of Moscow. This sounds like a positive development to me, though it is hardly a breakthrough in relations.


Source
First Visit To Rome of Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk [ewtn.com]

Stuart,

Good point. A lot has to do with the words, concepts and categories used to express the doctrine, and human words always fall short of divine Truth. This is why God did not give us His Revelation as a series of propositions.


I agree--at times our disputations seem to be not unlike those of the Pharisees and Sadducees.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Don't hold your breath! This is the typical over-optimism of the Latin Church.

Dn. Robert

Russia is preparing for the next meeting.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/print.php?act=news&id=3744
2007-10-05 13:24:00


Russian Orthodox Church to formulate her position on universal primacy

Moscow, October 5, Interfax - The Russian Orthodox Church has launched a workgroup to formulate her position on universal primacy. This decision was made during a plenary meeting of the Doctrinal Commission held in the Department for External Church Relations.

The workgroup will be chaired by the DECR deputy head, Bishop Mark of Yegoryevsk, the Moscow Patriarchate's official website reports.

The group is charged with a task to draft a document that would reflect the Russian Orthodox Church's view of the universal primacy in the church. It is planned that this will be the main agenda point for the next plenary of the Doctrinal Commission in December 2007.

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox do not have a universal primate or a supreme pontiff. They have a concept of a primus inter pares. Before 1054 such a position was ascribed to the bishop of Rome , and after the schism it was de facto held by the patriarch of Constantinople .

Yet many Orthodox Churches hold different views of Constantinople its primacy and role. Some believe that this primacy is purely honorable while others ascribe to Constantinople a number of coordinating functions or see it as an ultimate court of appeal.

The issue of primacy of Rome and Constantinople will be discussed during the second meeting of the Joint Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission that will be held in Ravenna , Italy , on October 9.

Earlier, the Head of the Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria told Interfax that the Moscow Patriarchate will defend its own position in the dispute and there will be no compromise.

Dear Father Deacon,

A contrast here between the optimism of Cardinal Kasper and the realism of Archbishop Hilarion...

Cardinal Kasper:

"But the real breakthrough [at Revenna 2997], he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first among them."


The response of the Orthodox Church of Russia:

Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept. This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has jurisdiction over any other."

From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

This is also why a bunch of "experts" meeting together at a joint consultation, manipulating and re-interpreting various phrases and concepts, is not necessarily a reliable gauge of what is true. When the "findings" of modern academics contradict Church Tradition and the lived theology of countless saints and martyrs, then it is clearly an attempt of poor human reasoning to surmount Revelation. When words fail, then the sanctity of SS. Mark of Ephesus, Maxim Sandovich, Peter the Aleut, etc. fills in the rest.

Greetings,
This is my first post on the forum. I have enjoyed reading some posts and hope to contribute to discussions in the future.

As reported at this link, it would appear that Archbishop Paolo Pezzi, who is in care of the Moscow Roman Catholic faithful, spoke to Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper with much optimism regarding union between Catholics and Orthodox, going so far as to say that union could be a "matter of months".

As a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism who is trying to live in accordance with Eastern Christian spirituality, it would be quite pleasing to me if this were to happen but I wonder why the Archbishop sounds so optimistic. Are there some developments in ecumenism (particularly in Russia) that most people are not aware of? Is this article accurate? I wonder.

At any rate, blessings to all, and the link+text to this article from the National Catholic Register are below.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily/catholic-orthodox_unity_in_sight/

Is Catholic-Orthodox Unity in Sight?
POSTED BY EDWARD PENTIN
Monday, September 14, 2009 11:10 AM


The Catholic Archbishop of Moscow has given a remarkably upbeat assessment of relations with the Orthodox Church, saying unity between Catholics and Orthodox could be achieved “within a few months.”

In an interview today in Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper, Archbishop Paolo Pezzi said the miracle of reunification “is possible, indeed it has never been so close.” The archbishop added that Catholic-Orthodox reunification, the end of the historic schism that has divided them for a millennium, and spiritual communion between the two churches “could happen soon, also within a few months.”

“Basically we were united for a thousand years,” Archbishop Pezzi said. “Then for another thousand we were divided. Now the path to rapprochement is at its peak, and the third millennium of the Church could begin as a sign of unity.” He said there were “no formal obstacles” but that “everything depends on a real desire for communion.”

On the part of the Catholic Church, he added, “the desire is very much alive.”

Archbishop Pezzi, 49, whose proper title is Metropolitan Archbishop of the Mother of God Archdiocese in Moscow, said that now there are “no real obstacles” on the path towards full communion and reunification. On issues of modernity, Catholics and Orthodox Christians feel the same way, he said: “Nothing separates us on bioethics, the family, and the protection of life.”

Also on matters of doctrine, the two churches are essentially in agreement. “There remains the question of papal primacy,” Archbishop Pezzi acknowledged, “and this will be a concern at the next meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox Commission. But to me, it doesn’t seem impossible to reach an agreement.”

Prospects for union with the Orthodox have increased markedly in recent years with the election of Pope Benedict XVI, whose work as a theologian in greatly admired in Orthodox circles. Benedict is also without the burden of the difficult political history between Poland and Russia, which hindered Polish Pope John Paul II from making as much progress as he would have liked regarding Catholic-Orthodox unity.

Relations have also been greatly helped by the election of Patriarch Kirill I earlier this year as leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is by far the largest of the national churches in the Orthodox Church. As the former head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external relations, Kirill met Benedict on several occasions before and after he became Pope, and the Russian Orthodox Patriarch is well acquainted with the Roman Curia and with Catholicism.

Seraphim,

I certainly did not mean to imply that a solution could be found by mere human striving, without divine assistance. This is God's work, and it will only be accomplished by men who are willing to submit to Him in all things.


I certainly agree that it is the lived theology of countless saints and martyrs, more so than that of scholars, that manifests the true Faith in its proper context. However, it is the theology of the scholars that caused these problems and misunderstandings in the first place.


With regard to St. Mark of Ephesus, I have no problem stating that the Latins were in the wrong at Florence, insofar as they made no concessions nor saw any reason to do so. Who knows what they might have accomplished if they had allowed a real discussion ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Benedicite!

I wonder if the secular language of negotiations is appropriate here. Christ is our way, our truth and our life. We are not negotiating or making concessions, but we are seeking the truth. We need to understand each other and discover language to which we can all agree. This is what was done at the early ecumenical Councils of the Church, when the Council Fathers agreed on the language of the Nicene Creed, for instance. This, too, is what we need to do now: to agree on a common Creed that asserts the truth in which we all believe, Christ, our Lord and God and Saviour, to whom be glory forever!

You mean, like when a bunch of experts got together at places like Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon? So, when did what they decided become true? Was it not only after everybody concurred that it was true? So, in that case, when a bunch of "experts" from the Latin Church got together in places like the Rome, Florence, Lyons or Constance, there was no guarantee what they decided was true, either. In which case, why are you so insistent that people other than yourself have to act as though they were true?

I think Embatl'd means things such as the 2007 meeting at Ravenna. The Agreed Statement which it issued has been sidelined by the Vatican with a cautionary note that some of its theology is unacceptable to Catholic ecclesiology. None of the Orthodox Churches have ratified it. It would be, I am guessing, these types of meetings and statements from "bunches of experts" which Embatl'd has in mind.

Your church accepts those latter councils as ecumenical and binding. If you don't agree, take it up with your bishops, not me. Of course I don't think they are true councils- that's why I am, quite sensibly, not in communion with Rome.