www.byzcath.org
Moscow Patriarchate denies reports about a Kirill-Francis meeting in Latin America

Nina Achmatova
01/27/2016
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Mosc...ncis-meeting-in-Latin-America-36509.html

The Russian Orthodox Church rules out any get-together when the two leaders travel to Cuba and Mexico in February. A report about a possible meeting in a third country recently appeared in Italian media.

Moscow (AsiaNews) – The Moscow Patriarchate has denied recent reports in Italian media of a possible meeting next month in Latin America between the pope and the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church.

"The Patriarch and the Pope's Latin American visit programs do not intersect," said Hieromonk Stefan (Igumnov), Russian Orthodox Church's spokesman for inter-Christian relations.

"The leader of the Russian Orthodox Church and the head of the Roman Catholic one will be visiting completely different countries, albeit on the same continent," he added.

The spokesman notes that the topic of a meeting between Kirill and Francis is raised in the media from time to time and was repeatedly commented upon by Church officials who said that "a discussion of its possibility is invariably present on the agenda of the bilateral relations, but no specific time and place of such a meeting have yet been stipulated."

In fact, talk about the leaders of the two sister churches possibly meeting in a third country has been going on for years. Italian weekly L'Espresso is the latest to suggest this possibility since both Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill will travel to Latin America next month, to Mexico and Cuba respectively.

At the same time, “Everyone knows that he is the pope of surprises. If he wants to make a change to his schedule, he will certainly do so,” said Captain Domenico Giani, inspector general of the Vatican Gendarmerie, at the end of a security inspection to Mexico, where Francis will visit on 12-18 February.
.....
Originally Posted by bkovacs
I'm glad their not meeting!. Francis is nothing more than a Pope who wants to be a mainline Protestant anyway. Hope he resigns this year!. God bless Patriarchate Kirill!. My feelings!


That's not your feelings, but your thoughts. I find your thoughts to be untrue, absurd and, worst of all, unChristian. Forgiveness Sunday is not far away; may I suggest a long, profound prostration, or, perhaps, we can put you outside the church door, in the snow, like Henry.
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by bkovacs
I'm glad their not meeting!. Francis is nothing more than a Pope who wants to be a mainline Protestant anyway. Hope he resigns this year!. God bless Patriarchate Kirill!. My feelings!


That's not your feelings, but your thoughts. I find your thoughts to be untrue, absurd and, worst of all, unChristian. Forgiveness Sunday is not far away; may I suggest a long, profound prostration, or, perhaps, we can put you outside the church door, in the snow, like Henry.


Look, I have never in my lifetime seen a pope who could provoke such wide-ranging love/hate or disagreements and opinions. I have a good friend who says Francis is a bumbling fool not worthy to sit on the throne of Peter. I, on the other hand, recommend him to God with the prayer that I don't understand him and can't classify him as good or bad.
.....
.....


Rorate coeli...indeed. Better the Lenten antiphon, Attende, Domine... You'd do well to emulate Papa Francesco. Taceo.
.....
Brother Roger received the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist at the Catholic Mass celebrated every morning in his monastery, and he received the sacrament from both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, seemingly in contravention of canonical prohibitions on administering the sacrament to those not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. According to Cardinal Walter Kasper, this was accomplished as though there was a tacit understanding between Brother Roger and the Catholic Church "crossing certain confessional" and canonical barriers through what Brother Roger called a gradual enrichment of his faith with the foundations of the Catholic Church including "the ministry of unity exercised by the bishop of Rome."

More food for you and your youtube friends to feed on.
Originally Posted by bkovacs
Watch this episode.
https://youtu.be/-W85Mair6Uc


This is an SSPX source who are in schism from the Catholic Church so blah-blah-blah - what is it going to take? How about restoration of full communion with Rome by these people who think they are more Catholic than Rome or the Pope!

And what is the difference between the SSPX and the Lutherans this segment decries so much? Both separated from the Catholic Church because they believed their interpretation about what the Church should be teaching overruled that by Rome.

This fellow on this station quotes a Pope who condemned what Pope Francis will do.

OK, then where was the SSPX when, in 1015, a Roman pope decreed that the Filioque should be added to the Nicene Creed where it never was before? And a whole list of add-ons that came later?

Is the SSPX condemning those things as well? Can't it be fair?

I may not be very "pastoral" in my approach here, but then again, I don't have to be.

Alex
Well - there appears to be an interesting update on the original post


EWTN say they WILL meet

Quote
“The Holy See and the Patriarchate of Moscow are pleased to announce that, by the grace of God, His Holiness Pope Francis and His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia will meet on February 12 next,” a joint Feb. 5 press release from the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church read. ..........
Vatican News says they will meet:
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-to-meet-patriarch-kirill-of-moscow-on
Pope and Patriarch meet
AP says they are meeting on Feb. 12.

meeting
.....
Why don't YOU stop acting like a Protestant and stop attacking the Pope?

I thought you Latin Trad types were against the "schismatical Orthodox."

They are your allies now?

Alex
.....
Your rant, dear friend, indicates to me that you know little of these saintly popes. It was Papa Francesco who raised Pope John Paul II to saintly glory. St. John Paul II was tireless in his efforts to reconcile all Christians, even Protestants of every stripe. I informed you in a previous post that both brought the Eucharist to the Protestant monk, Brother Roger. Pope emeritus Benedict XVI has professed his complete confidence in the presiding pope, and Francis seeks both his wisdom and intellect, not to mention his spiritual strength, and I'm sure with Benedict's blessing he is going off to Havana to meet the Patriarch. Perhaps you could give His Holiness, Pope Francis your blessing for his journey of reconciliation. In any event, please take the advice I offered you in my first post and do those prostrations or imitate poor Henry at Canossa.
Is this meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Cyril a good thing? Can we expect good results for Crimea and Ukraine, or just some superficial photo-op? I am sorry if I sound cynical, but Rome has been wanting this meeting for such a long time (Pope St. John Paul II desparately wanted to meet Patriarch Alexius II), so why is it happening now? What do the Russians feel they have to gain from a meeting now? John Allen at CruxNow thinks Cyril has wanted this all along and now feels stong enough to withstand internal criticism. Is that it? At least, please do not tell me that the Russians have been charmed by the apparent humility of Pope Francis. I am sure there is more to it than that.
Wow, I woke up this morning to learn the news! shocked
Pope Francis has done it again and surprised us!
I am without words.
I had been praying for this to happen with St. John Paul II.

I will definitely be watching the news coverage.

I am concerned especially with what impact this will have on the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, considering that the Russian Orthodox Church has complained about the UGCC being a "problem". I am curious to know if His Beatitide Sviatoslav Shevchuk had any involvement or input.

Here in Maine, as perhaps in Norway, our cold winters yield to early spring thaws that we call "mud season"; in mid-spring that in turn yields to the glory of very verdant summers. My prayer is that a thousand year winter freeze can yield the same in warm Havana. I expect nothing but good. Pace e Bene!
Deo volente, some good will come of it. And yes, cold winters yield to beautiful summers in Norway too smile
Well, here is the joint release.

Here is Met. Hilarion commenting.
Am I the only one whose first reaction to the denial was to think of Comrade Andropov's cold?

And then the newer info . . .

smile --i think

hawk
The Wall Street Journal's reporter in Rome interviewed me on the phone today. Here's the story:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-to-meet-russian-orthodox-leader-in-cuba-1454673252

Jack
Jack

Unless you are subscribed or wish to subscribe you cannot read the article
Actually, if you google the headline and follow the link from there, you should be able to read the full WSJ article.
UKRAINIAN PATRIARCH REMAINS HOPEFUL ABOUT MEETING BETWEEN THE POPE AND THE MOSCOW PATRIARCH

5 February 2016
http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/catholics/ugcc/62409/

The UGCC Media Department has released the following reaction of Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk to the announcement of the upcoming meeting of Pope Francis with Patriarch Kiril of Moscow, in Havana, Cuba:

I do not expect Pope Francis' meeting with Patriarch Kirill, scheduled for February 12, will bring about specific changes. Although it is good that the meeting will take place and I am glad that, finally, the ROC has come to the understand that it is necessary to meet.

Patriarch Sviatoslav said that, over the years, the Russian Orthodox Church has refused such a meeting and called the Ukrainian Catholic Church an obstacle to dialogue. "The meeting can not be an end in itself but rather a tool, a necessary means for honest and open dialogue. We are very glad that we were no longer considered an obstacle and we are no longer cited as the reason for their reluctance to engage in such dialogue ", - said the patriarch.

He stressed that the meeting of two primates, actually being held on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Lviv pseudo-synod, which forcibly suppressed the UGCC [in Ukraine] . "The Russian Orthodox Church, unfortunately, has yet to condemn the conduct of the violent act that made the Soviets. We hope that the meeting of the Pope and Patriarch create a new context for the movement towards historical justice "- said the patriarch.

The Head of the UGCC hopes that the very fact of the meeting will alter some radical rhetoric coming from the Russian Orthodox, who do not recognize the Catholic Church as valid, re-baptize Catholics and entice them to become Orthodox, do not take part in common prayers and even called the whole process of seeking church unity "heresy of ecumenism". We saw an example of such intolerance last week in Donetsk when, during a rally staged outside the Greek Catholic parish, we were referred to as "a sect."

"It is likely that during the meeting the Pope and the Patriarch will speak about the current situation in Ukraine. I hope that the Holy Father Francis, who always raises his voice in defense of hurt, become the voice of Ukrainian leading their struggle for cohesion and unity of the country. God grant that Patriarch Kirill will, as a result of the meeting, give the necessary instructions to the faithful Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian authorities, to quickly stop the aggression of Russia against Ukraine and arrive at a just peace "- the patriarch concluded.
Feb 6,2016
I pray that the Holy Spirit may guide the two Patriarchs in their meeting and begin the necessary steps to REUNITE the separated Churches.
(Signed): Anaphora
Arrival of Patriarch Kirill to Havana being broadcast live right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24aL0i-4ERY
Live now on EWTN http://www.ewtn.com/
Signing of Joint Declaration and Farewell.
I am watching as well, did I hear correctly a 30 paragraph declaration? Interesting how it included the violence in Ukraine.

The common declaration is available here in 7 languages.

Section 25, referring to Greek Catholics in Ukraine, states that "the ecclesial communities which emerged in these historical circumstances ["unitatism"] have the right to exist and to undertake all that is necessary to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful, while seeking to live in peace with their neighbours. Orthodox and Greek Catholics are in need of reconciliation and of mutually acceptable forms of co–existence."
Yes it is thank you. The parts I wanted to see was section 26 and 27 in reference to Ukraine
Yes, 26 and 27 are also very interesting paragraphs.
Sorry I wasn't able to paste them ,but the announcers mentioned Ukraine and my ears perked up
The sections most relevant to Ukraine seem to be these (see link above for full text):

Quote
25. It is our hope that our meeting may also contribute to reconciliation wherever tensions exist between Greek Catholics and Orthodox. It is today clear that the past method of “uniatism”, understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, is not the way to re–establish unity. Nonetheless, the ecclesial communities which emerged in these historical circumstances have the right to exist and to undertake all that is necessary to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful, while seeking to live in peace with their neighbours. Orthodox and Greek Catholics are in need of reconciliation and of mutually acceptable forms of co–existence.

26. We deplore the hostility in Ukraine that has already caused many victims, inflicted innumerable wounds on peaceful inhabitants and thrown society into a deep economic and humanitarian crisis. We invite all the parts involved in the conflict to prudence, to social solidarity and to action aimed at constructing peace. We invite our Churches in Ukraine to work towards social harmony, to refrain from taking part in the confrontation, and to not support any further development of the conflict.

27. It is our hope that the schism between the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine may be overcome through existing canonical norms, that all the Orthodox Christians of Ukraine may live in peace and harmony, and that the Catholic communities in the country may contribute to this, in such a way that our Christian brotherhood may become increasingly evident.

Francis
Bishop of Rome
Pope of the Catholic Church
It is interesting that the Eastern rite Churches are called only ecclesiastical communities. The articles are interesting in that they avoid the Russian role in Ukraine and seem to undermine the justice of Ukrainians defending themselves from aggression. The text therefore seems to join the Moscow Patriarchate's call for "peace" in Ukraine that would in fact undermine Ukrainian independence. The pope's agreeing to a statement about ending schism in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and dealing only with "canonical" means seems to place him at odds with the rapidly growing Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate. If he aims at curtailing the patriotic actions of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and its support of national defence and independence he is likely to alienate them. They are also little likely to follow his lead if he wishes to cut off ecumenical contacts with the Kyiv Patriarch. One wonders how the Patriarch of Constantinople will react to this Rome-Moscow agreement.
Good to see you here JJP.
Rev Peter Galadza, Acting Director and Kule Family Professor of Liturgy Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Institute of Eastern Christian Studies (Ottawa) commented on joint statement signed in Havana:

"The inability to get any kind of reference in the joint statement to foreign aggression in Ukraine is a major flaw in an otherwise decent statement - Ukrainians worldwide will be very disappointed. And Antonii Pakanych's (metripolitan of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate) prominence in the Moscow Patriarchate delegation without anyone even remotely representative of Eastern Catholicism (not to mention Ukr. Gr. Catholicism) is also very unfortunate."

Source.
Thanks! I still lurk from time to time but this is the kind of good news that I can't resist enjoying.
Rev Andriy Chirovsky "very initial comments" on joint declaration signed in Havana today.

"All three paragraphs about Ukraine are very disappointing.
#25 basically calls us [Eastern Catholics] an “ecclesial community” Moscow wins.

“'uniatism', understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, “ is an ambiguous definition. Again, we are just a community. I remember the Quadripartite Commission in 1990: “communities of Catholics of the Byzantine Rite” Studous avoidance of calling us CHURCH.
#26 No mention of foreign aggression. Moscow wins.

"Churches refraining from taking part in confrontation” This refers to our Church supporting a defensive war. remember the Feb 5 Press conference, where Ilarion accused us of inciting conflict
#26 The “canonical” language is a way to put down the UOC-KP and UAOC. Moscow decides what is canonical. Catholics need" to contribute to this” instead of "supporting the schismatics” as Ilarion accused us on Feb 5. Moscow Wins"

Source: Religious Information Service of Ukraine Facebook page

Forgive me for sounding cavalier about this -- and I do have less at stake than many of you -- so take this as an outsider's observation. It strikes me that Ukrainian and otherwise Greek Catholic commenters and citations fail to see beyond their own relatively ad hoc interests. One cannot expect every topic to be given fair airing in such a brief, introductory meeting between the two -- shall we say -- patriarchs. Given the statue of the interlocutors, it should be no surprise which ecclesial bodies are deemed canonical...it is the meeting of those two church leaders only and not involving any others. The situation in Ukraine is complex and no one party, Greek Catholic or any of the other Orthodox churches can speak for the whole. This is a start. As bad as thing are in Ukraine... and in Russia, they are no where near as bad as Christians have it in the Mideast.
Originally Posted by Mark R
Forgive me for sounding cavalier about this -- and I do have less at stake than many of you -- so take this as an outsider's observation. It strikes me that Ukrainian and otherwise Greek Catholic commenters and citations fail to see beyond their own relatively ad hoc interests. One cannot expect every topic to be given fair airing in such a brief, introductory meeting between the two -- shall we say -- patriarchs. Given the statue of the interlocutors, it should be no surprise which ecclesial bodies are deemed canonical...it is the meeting of those two church leaders only and not involving any others. The situation in Ukraine is complex and no one party, Greek Catholic or any of the other Orthodox churches can speak for the whole. This is a start. As bad as thing are in Ukraine... and in Russia, they are no where near as bad as Christians have it in the Mideast.


Well said! And regarding the Middle East and our involvement there (far from benign and innocent), let me just offer a quote from Patriarch Kirill in a recent interview:

"“A large-scale war should be averted at all costs,” he said, adding that it should be the “number one priority for the Americans, the Russians, and many other people with a sensible perspective on what is happening.”

Amen.
"For the peace of the whole world,
the well being of the Church of God,
and for the unity of all,
let us pray to the Lord".
Originally Posted by Thomas the Seeker
"For the peace of the whole world,
the well being of the Church of God,
and for the unity of all,
let us pray to the Lord".


Amen.
More reactions:

His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk: «Two Parallel Worlds» – An Interview with His Beatitude Sviatoslav

Dr. Adam A. J. DeVille: Francis and Kiril: Who Played Whom?

Carl E. Olsen: Seven Thoughts on the "Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill"
It is a really moot point in the DeVille piece in CWR about the Jesuit expulsion from Russia in 1820 given that the order was suppressed by Rome everywhere else but in Russia less than a century earlier.
I was pleased with the meeting, and with the Joint Declaration issued by the two hierarchs.
The Vatican did everything to accommodate Patriarch Kirill, but received little in return

by Fr Mark Drew
posted Saturday, 13 Feb 2016
CatholicHerald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/02/13/the-vatican-did-everything-to-accommodate-patriarch-kirill-but-received-little-in-return/

The Russian patriarch, not Pope Francis, has the most reason to be satisfied after the Havana meeting and joint statement

Ukrainian Greek Catholics: "betrayed" by "half-truths" in Francis and Kirill’s Joint Declaration

Marta Allevato
15 February 2016
AsiaNews.it/news-en/Ukrainian-Greek-Catholics:-betrayed-by-half-truths-in-Francis-and-Kirill%E2%80%99s-Joint-Declaration--36684.html

The major archbishop of Kiev speaks of Cuba encounter: a meeting of "two parallel worlds". The Joint Declaration "generally positive" for future cooperation. Points which concern Ukraine “controversial”: the Vatican is being exploited by Russian Orthodox diplomacy. Shevchuk reiterates: the Greek-Catholic Church has never supported the war, provoked by "Russian aggression".

Originally Posted by Tomassus
Ukrainian Greek Catholics: "betrayed" by "half-truths" in Francis and Kirill’s Joint Declaration

Marta Allevato
15 February 2016
AsiaNews.it/news-en/Ukrainian-Greek-Catholics:-betrayed-by-half-truths-in-Francis-and-Kirill%E2%80%99s-Joint-Declaration--36684.html

The major archbishop of Kiev speaks of Cuba encounter: a meeting of "two parallel worlds". The Joint Declaration "generally positive" for future cooperation. Points which concern Ukraine “controversial”: the Vatican is being exploited by Russian Orthodox diplomacy. Shevchuk reiterates: the Greek-Catholic Church has never supported the war, provoked by "Russian aggression".

Moscow (AsiaNews) - The Ukrainian Greek Catholic church feels "betrayed" by the Vatican after the meeting between Pope Francis and the Patriarch of Moscow Kirill, on February 12 in Cuba.

According to the head of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, the major Archbishop of Kiev, Sviatoslav Shevchuk, it was an encounter of "two parallel worlds."

Tomassus: Please note that it is a violation of copyright re-post entire news stories from other websites without permission from those websites. An acceptable method is "fair use", in which you post a few paragraphs (usually the ones you wish to emphasize) and then provide a link to the article itself on the website you found it. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
[quote=griego catolico]Wow, I woke up this morning to learn the news! shocked
Pope Francis has done it again and surprised us!
I am without words.
I had been praying for this to happen with St. John Paul II.

I will definitely be watching the news coverage.

I am concerned especially with what impact this will have on the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, considering that the Russian Orthodox Church has complained about the UGCC being a "problem". I am curious to know if His Beatitide Sviatoslav Shevchuk had any involvement or input.

Dear Griego Amigo,

His Beatitude was not invited to participate in anything related to this meeting as he himself affirmed.

For reasons indicated by His Beatitude and Fr. Prof. Peter Galadza of the Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Insitute, this event is hugely disappointing to the UGCC.

In Church yesterday our pastor talked about this meeting and said that Christ Himself would be for dialogue - but on His own terms, not those of the world.

Does this Vatican-Moscow diplomacy reflect the Spirit of Christ or that of the world?

Alex
Originally Posted by Mark R
... the DeVille piece in CWR ...

I haven't read it, but I think I can imagine it, having read his recent piece "Apologia Pro Unia".
Me thinks His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk as a major archbishop of a sui juris church has to forge his own way to achieve dialogue with his Orthodox brothers and specifically with the Patriarch of Moscow. Papa Francesco as bishop of Rome and primate of the whole Catholic Church has done an admirable job of forging those initial bonds in Havana. I don't think anyone is really a loser or winner. All have gained by the encounter. I feel confident that there were no half-truths, at least on the part of Francis, expressed during that two hour closed door session.It will be most interesting to learn, even in an abbreviated way, just what transpired. His Beatitude said it well when he explained that we need not read too much into these joint statements. They are deliberately innocuous and make most happy in order to achieve a more enduring result. That the Pope and Patriarch met at all is a remarkable. That they shared a Kiss of Peace and called the other, "Brother" is even more remarkable.
Quote
25. It is our hope that our meeting may also contribute to reconciliation wherever tensions exist between Greek Catholics and Orthodox. It is today clear that the past method of “uniatism”, understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, is not the way to re–establish unity. Nonetheless, the ecclesial communities which emerged
Originally Posted by frank sysyn
It is interesting that the Eastern rite Churches are called only ecclesiastical communities.
Originally Posted by griego catolico
Rev Andriy Chirovsky "very initial comments" on joint declaration signed in Havana today.

...
#25 basically calls us [Eastern Catholics] an “ecclesial community” Moscow wins.

“'uniatism', understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, “ is an ambiguous definition. Again, we are just a community. I remember the Quadripartite Commission in 1990: “communities of Catholics of the Byzantine Rite” Studous avoidance of calling us CHURCH.

"Churches refraining from taking part in confrontation” This refers to our Church supporting a defensive war.
So in the end "the ecclesial communities that emerged" are called Churches (and that they need to avoid confrontation). The abjuring of "uniatism" here comes very close in its wording to an implicit official endorsement of THIS facet of the Balamand Statement.

The wording of §25 above is sloppy and I would hope is not a statement about ecclesiology using terms that the Catholic Church has used in the past to distinguish Churches, who have a bishop in Apostolic succession, from ecclesiastical communities who have no such episcopacy. Using some specific cases, here's my close reading of §25 above at "the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church":

The "one community" at Uzhhorod joined without bishops and was as such what could be called an ecclesiastical community. The "one community" at Brest, however, had bishops and entered the union as Churches. In both of these instances in "the union of one community to the other" the community that is the "other" is the Catholic Church itself. So the Catholic Church is here in its entirety called just a "community." (For the "the ecclesial communities which emerged" the Ukrainians were already Churches and the Sub-Carpathian Rus' were given, eventually, their own episcopacy.)

The only one called a Church is that from which the "one community" separated ("separating it from its Church" as it says), that is, the Orthodox Church at Brest and the particular Orthodox Church or Churches at Uzhhorod.

So, I presume loose wording here was intended; it is certainly the case.


From First Things and Yale, Cyril Hovorun weighs in with this: "For me, the text of the Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill’s joint declaration came as a surprise, as did their meeting and its location in Havana. This document is significantly better in style and content than any earlier official document or statement from the Russian Orthodox Church. Simply put, the text is less political and more Christian."

And this observation: "The Havana Declaration does not contain any reference to Crimea, but it is quite new for a statement signed by the Russian Patriarch to acknowledge that Ukrainian Greek Catholics can exist. The Declaration also calls the Orthodox to live in peace with them. "

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/02/the-havana-declaration[u][/u]
Originally Posted by griego catolico
Rev Andriy Chirovsky "very initial comments" on joint declaration signed in Havana today.

"All three paragraphs about Ukraine are very disappointing.
#25 basically calls us [Eastern Catholics] an “ecclesial community” Moscow wins.

“'uniatism', understood as the union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, “ is an ambiguous definition. Again, we are just a community. I remember the Quadripartite Commission in 1990: “communities of Catholics of the Byzantine Rite” Studous avoidance of calling us CHURCH.
#26 No mention of foreign aggression. Moscow wins.

"Churches refraining from taking part in confrontation” This refers to our Church supporting a defensive war. remember the Feb 5 Press conference, where Ilarion accused us of inciting conflict
#26 The “canonical” language is a way to put down the UOC-KP and UAOC. Moscow decides what is canonical. Catholics need" to contribute to this” instead of "supporting the schismatics” as Ilarion accused us on Feb 5. Moscow Wins"

Source: Religious Information Service of Ukraine Facebook page



A new response by Fr. Andriy Chirovsky on the Havana Declaration: "Called To Unity"
[quote=griego catolicoA new response by Fr. Andriy Chirovsky on the Havana Declaration: "Called To Unity" [/quote]

Fr. Andriy is quite disingenuous when he says, "Endless references to the thousand-year estrangement between Rome and Moscow display ignorance of the fact that 1,000 years ago the Patriarchate of Moscow did not exist. It was created in 1589."

Yes, the TITLE of Patriarchate of Moscow was created in 1589, but the SEE was in fact the original metropolis of Kiev which had been transferred to Vladimir in the 13th century and then to Moscow in the 14th. Meanwhile, the Greek Catholic metropolis of Kiev was founded in 1458 so in fact they are the ones claiming a history which is not theirs.
Union of Brest was in 1595, there were no Greek Catholics in 1458.

Actuallay the real disingenuous position is the Russian claim in that the lands under Greek Catholic Bishops in both Polish and Austro-Hungarian territory were not historically part of Russia or canonical Russian Territory. When Orthodox, those lands were subject to the authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople prior to the fall in 1454 and through the last Orthodox bishops in AH in the late 18th century under the Patriarchate of Serbia if my memory is correct.

Lviv - the real center of Greek Catholicism was not under Tsarist control, later Soviet until much later.

The canonical infringement argument is disingenuous unless you are a pan Slavist or believe in Russky Mir.
Originally Posted by DMD
Union of Brest was in 1595, there were no Greek Catholics in 1458.


This would be news to Metropolitan Isidore.

I would agree with your other arguments re: MP's territorial, canonical claims but the fact is that the MP, for better or worse, is the descendent of the see founded in Kiev in 988.
Moscow usurped the title of the See founded in Kyiv (not the Russian "Kiev" please - your Russophilism is again rearing itself).

That is the point of contention. Perhaps more than one See can lay claim to St Andrew's apostolic foundation.

The FACT remains that St Andrew, even by legend, was in Kyiv (the tradition he was in Constantinople is of similar legendary status) and no Apostle was ever, even by legend, in Moscow.

The Tsars usurped the title and turned the Metropolitan of Kyiv into that of Moscow.

And I thought you didn't like Tsarism . . .

Alex
Also, DMD is more than correct. "Greek Catholics" historically developed from the Union of Brest. The Orthodox bishops that signed that union called themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome" or else, later, "Greco-Uniates." "Greek Catholics" as a title came about under the Austro-Hungarian Empire which wanted to juxtapose Greek Catholics to Roman Catholics and the title has stuck until today.

The Union of Florence was short-lived and did not involve the creation of a persisting group of "Greek Catholics" (at best, a misnomer) but of Orthodox bishops and others of Constantinople who came into union with Rome, such as Isidore of Kyiv. They didn't see themselves as having formed a separate church, but as simply having established (some might say "re-established") communion with Rome that existed prior to the great schism.

They did not therefore see themselves as "Greek Catholics" which would have been totally foreign to them on a number of scores (just as the term would have been foreign to the original "Orthodox in communion with Rome" of 1596.

Alex
Originally Posted by DMD
Union of Brest was in 1595, there were no Greek Catholics in 1458.

Actuallay the real disingenuous position is the Russian claim in that the lands under Greek Catholic Bishops in both Polish and Austro-Hungarian territory were not historically part of Russia or canonical Russian Territory. When Orthodox, those lands were subject to the authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople prior to the fall in 1454 and through the last Orthodox bishops in AH in the late 18th century under the Patriarchate of Serbia if my memory is correct.

Lviv - the real center of Greek Catholicism was not under Tsarist control, later Soviet until much later.

The canonical infringement argument is disingenuous unless you are a pan Slavist or believe in Russky Mir.


Very, very well stated DMD! Bravo!

Alex
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Moscow usurped the title of the See founded in Kyiv (not the Russian "Kiev" please - your Russophilism is again rearing itself).


You might as well say "Damascus usurped the title of the See founded in Antioch." That's how much historical sense your comment makes.

The see moved to Moscow. Kiev (I say Kiev because I speak English) was depopulated at the time. Kiev had been completely devastated in 1240 and didn't really recover, so it made sense for the ecclesiastical center of Rus' to move north. Talking about "Moscow" as a usurping force in the 14th century is rather anachronistic. Rus' was under the Tatar yoke still and an independent Muscovy was yet to come. Moscow was on the ascent but it was hardly a sure thing- the Tatars liked to buttress one city, then another, to keep the Rus' off balance.

Quote
The Tsars usurped the title and turned the Metropolitan of Kyiv into that of Moscow.


That's an impressive feat! As I'm sure you know, the first Tsar was in 1480. He must have been a very holy man to be able to travel back in time to 1325 when the see of Kiev was moved to Moscow.
The Protest of Ukrainian Catholics: “The Pope Supports Russian Aggression”

The archbishop of Kiev gives voice to the bitterness of his faithful, because of the embrace between Francis and the patriarch of Moscow and the “half truths” of the document they signed in Havana

by Sandro Magister
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351233?eng=y

ROME, February 17, 2016 – At the last conclave at which a Catholic power exercised its right of veto, a little more than a century ago, the cardinal who started out in the lead was ejected from the game because he was pro-French, in favor of a pro-Austrian candidate, who was elected pope with the name of Pius X.

Today the accusation that falls upon Pope Francis is that he is pro-Russian. And the latest of many proofs of this would be the joint declaration he signed with Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Rus’, on February 12 at the Havana airport:

> [/url] "By God the Father’s...so.repubblica.it/articolo/1351228?eng=y] Over the Embrace Between Francis and Kirill Falls the Shadow of Putin

And this is what happened. With the epicenter of the reactions being Ukraine and in particular its five million Greek-Catholics.

Their major archbishop, Sviatoslav Shevchuk (in the photo), has said:

"Many contacted me and said that they feel betrayed by the Vatican, disappointed by the half-truth nature of this document, and even see it as indirect support by the Apostolic See for Russian aggression against Ukraine."

The archbishop of Kiev agreed wth these sentiments of his faithful in an extensive interview published Sunday, February 14 in Ukrainian and English on the official website of the Greek-Catholic Church:

> [/url] "Two Parallel Worlds&q...o-da-francesco-e-kirill-da-dimenticare/] Il nunzio in Ucraina sul documento di Francesco e Kirill: "Da dimenticare"

Reproduced [/url] here is the position stateme...so.repubblica.it/articolo/1351233?eng=y] "Two Parallel Worlds": An Interview with His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk
"Nonetheless, I encourage our faithful not to dramatize this Declaration and not to exaggerate its importance for Church life. We have experienced more than one such statement, and will survive this one as well. We need to remember that our unity and full communion with the Holy Father, the Successor of the Apostle Peter, is not the result of political agreement or diplomatic compromise, or the clarity of a Joint Declaration text. This unity and communion with the Peter of today is a matter of our faith. It is to him, Pope Francis, and to each of us today, that Christ says in the Gospel of Luke: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

I find this the most significant statement of His Beatitude concerning the whole subject. Oft times the popes are "damned if they do, damned if they don't." Ukrainian Catholics need to get over it, and forge their own good relations with people they aren't especially fond of. I find this animosity over a "joint statement" meant to break the ice, so to speak, ridiculous, and I'm hardly a Russophile.
Peking and Beiping have morphed over time into the currently accepted Beijing. If the capital city of modern Ukraine is transliterated by the people who live there and speak the language of that city as Kyiv - so be it. Unless you refer to call Uzhorod as Ungvar or Mucachevo as Munkacs or New York as New Amsterdam.
Originally Posted by DMD
Peking and Beiping have morphed over time into the currently accepted Beijing. If the capital city of modern Ukraine is transliterated by the people who live there and speak the language of that city as Kyiv - so be it. Unless you refer to call Uzhorod as Ungvar or Mucachevo as Munkacs or New York as New Amsterdam.


Do you refer to the capital of Russia as "Moskva"? Do you say "Rome" or "Roma"?

If it's alright with Alex, I will henceforth refer to the capital of Ukraine as Little Moscow.
Quote
New York as New Amsterdam.


It will always be New Amsterdam to me..... grin grin grin
Swan,

"Kiev" is no longer the convention for the capital of Ukraine in English - perhaps you aren't as familiar with the language as you have led on.

As for "Little Moscow," since so much that is Russian culture was stolen and appropriated by "Russia" (and "Russia" as a name too), please do feel free to call Kyiv "Little Moscow."

"Little" in the Greek usage, if you care to know something about it, is "mikra" which means "essential" while "Great" in Greek refers to the non-essential, larger mass that surrounds the essential "heart" if you will.

Thus, it is entirely appropriate to refer to the capital of Ukraine as "Little Moscow" - very good on your part.

So if you want to be offensive, you will have to find another venue. You've just shot yourself badly in the leg.

Alex
Alex, I concede your point. Using the correct spelling of "Kyiv", my team of historians, archaeologists, and philologists have drafted the following statement which we submit to your learned review:

In the year 1480, Ivan III, the first Tsar of Muscovy, attained dispassion, saw the Uncreated Light, and traveled back in time with a select band of Holy Time Warriors to the year 1325. There he constrained Peter, Metropolitan of KYIV and all Rus', to relocate his see from Vladimir to Moscow. Thus was the see of KYIV usurped by the Tsar.
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Swan,

"Kiev" is no longer the convention for the capital of Ukraine in English - perhaps you aren't as familiar with the language as you have led on.


At risk of stepping into the minefield, I don't believe this is really settled yet. While Ukraine has adopted "Kyiv" as its standard Latinization, press outlets in the English-speaking word continue to use "Kiev." While the White House started using "Kyiv" in March of 2014, the BBC, New York Times, Reuters, and the AP continue to use "Kiev," presumably because "Kiev" is how most English-speakers know the city and how they would search for news stories. And, in American English anyway, the pronunciation is not appreciably different. "Kyiv" does appear occasionally, but I suspect it is still the less-common spelling by a fair margin. It's not my field of study, but I would not be surprised to learn "Kyiv" has gained ascendancy in academic work.
OK, Mr. KGB, the game is up. Why don't you take your facts and rational thinking to the PutinMania forum?
Originally Posted by SwanOfEndlessTales
Alex, I concede your point. Using the correct spelling of "Kyiv", my team of historians, archaeologists, and philologists have drafted the following statement which we submit to your learned review:

In the year 1480, Ivan III, the first Tsar of Muscovy, attained dispassion, saw the Uncreated Light, and traveled back in time with a select band of Holy Time Warriors to the year 1325. There he constrained Peter, Metropolitan of KYIV and all Rus', to relocate his see from Vladimir to Moscow. Thus was the see of KYIV usurped by the Tsar.


The correct spelling of ANYTHING is historical - your team of whoever, headed by you, fails to take that into account.

Ukraine is no longer a vassal state of Russia, whether imperial or Soviet or neo-Soviet.

And it will never return to such again. The history books concerning Russia and its bloody, colonial past, using Orthodox Christianity - when it didn't repress and martyr it - have yet to be written so that the world may see it for what it truly is.
Originally Posted by MalpanaGiwargis
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Swan,

"Kiev" is no longer the convention for the capital of Ukraine in English - perhaps you aren't as familiar with the language as you have led on.


At risk of stepping into the minefield, I don't believe this is really settled yet. While Ukraine has adopted "Kyiv" as its standard Latinization, press outlets in the English-speaking word continue to use "Kiev." While the White House started using "Kyiv" in March of 2014, the BBC, New York Times, Reuters, and the AP continue to use "Kiev," presumably because "Kiev" is how most English-speakers know the city and how they would search for news stories. And, in American English anyway, the pronunciation is not appreciably different. "Kyiv" does appear occasionally, but I suspect it is still the less-common spelling by a fair margin. It's not my field of study, but I would not be surprised to learn "Kyiv" has gained ascendancy in academic work.


Well, it would depend on the paradigms academics work within - and they all work within one sort or another, don't they? If they think they don't and that they are objective, as Swan seems to think they are, then that is a separate issue for discussion (and he appears to have swallowed the Russian lemonade).

A free Eastern Europe is a relatively new thing and one can't count on journalists to catch up so quickly (its only been 25 years since the fall of the USSR, after all).

Having worked with journalists covering politics for a quarter of a century, I met very, very few who weren't disappointed leftists who settled on a career promoting their unfulfilled vision of a utopia that remains out of reach.

We wouldn't rely on journalists to give an accurate accounting of Christianity or Christian news, for the most part. It is bad policy to rely on them as a harbinger of truth and best practice in anything else as well.

Alex
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Originally Posted by MalpanaGiwargis
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Swan,

"Kiev" is no longer the convention for the capital of Ukraine in English - perhaps you aren't as familiar with the language as you have led on.


At risk of stepping into the minefield, I don't believe this is really settled yet. While Ukraine has adopted "Kyiv" as its standard Latinization, press outlets in the English-speaking word continue to use "Kiev." While the White House started using "Kyiv" in March of 2014, the BBC, New York Times, Reuters, and the AP continue to use "Kiev," presumably because "Kiev" is how most English-speakers know the city and how they would search for news stories. And, in American English anyway, the pronunciation is not appreciably different. "Kyiv" does appear occasionally, but I suspect it is still the less-common spelling by a fair margin. It's not my field of study, but I would not be surprised to learn "Kyiv" has gained ascendancy in academic work.


Well, it would depend on the paradigms academics work within - and they all work within one sort or another, don't they? If they think they don't and that they are objective, as Swan seems to think they are, then that is a separate issue for discussion (and he appears to have swallowed the Russian lemonade).

A free Eastern Europe is a relatively new thing and one can't count on journalists to catch up so quickly (its only been 25 years since the fall of the USSR, after all).

Having worked with journalists covering politics for a quarter of a century, I met very, very few who weren't disappointed leftists who settled on a career promoting their unfulfilled vision of a utopia that remains out of reach.

We wouldn't rely on journalists to give an accurate accounting of Christianity or Christian news, for the most part. It is bad policy to rely on them as a harbinger of truth and best practice in anything else as well.

Alex


Nor would I want to rely on them for such. I was just using them as an example to demonstrate that the statement "'Kiev' is no longer the convention" is not entirely accurate. It's a matter of utter indifference for me.
Originally Posted by SwanOfEndlessTales
Alex, I concede your point. Using the correct spelling of "Kyiv", my team of historians, archaeologists, and philologists have drafted the following statement which we submit to your learned review:

In the year 1480, Ivan III, the first Tsar of Muscovy, attained dispassion, saw the Uncreated Light, and traveled back in time with a select band of Holy Time Warriors to the year 1325. There he constrained Peter, Metropolitan of KYIV and all Rus', to relocate his see from Vladimir to Moscow. Thus was the see of KYIV usurped by the Tsar.


It all becomes too funny for words. If the current English style books say "Kiev" then that is what I will use. This reminds me of the current trend of groups trying to stay in the limelight by reinventing and renaming themselves.

Traveling forward to 2235, degradation of the language has resulted in the city being called "Kyrp." It was designated by the holy Russian patriarch as such, and all the holy Kyrp Ukrainian patriarchs of churches XYZ, KGB, MPZ, MP-Except on Sunday-then-ABC, have endorsed that decision. Long may confusion reign.
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The correct spelling of ANYTHING is historical - your team of whoever, headed by you, fails to take that into account.

Ukraine is no longer a vassal state of Russia, whether imperial or Soviet or neo-Soviet.


Ukraine was not a vassal state of Russia in the 14th century. In fact, there really was no Ukraine or Russia- there were Rus' principalities, most of which were vassals of the Golden Horde, the rest being dominated by the Lithuanians. The Mongols would not have tolerated a united Russian state, or even a very hegemonic principality, and they switched their favors from one principality to another to prevent such a thing from happening. Moscow just happened to be the one that got out of hand in the 15th century. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here about imperial/soviet/neo-soviet Russia- none of those categories bear relevance to the fact that the see of Kiev/Kyiv was transferred to Vladimir and then Moscow. The metropolitans who made these moves were duly recognized by their mother church in Constantinople as the metropolitans of Kiev and all Rus'.

You argued that the Tsar of Moscow usurped the see of Kiev/Kyiv. I simply pointed out that this is impossible since the there was no Tsar at the time that the see of Kiev was transferred from Vladimir to Moscow.
Swan, Swan, Swan . . .

I understand your point but there is imprecision in your analysis.

The people of "Ukraine" are referred to in the Ipatiev Chronicle in 1169 and onward. Principalities were administrative units and "Rus'" was used as an administrative name for the principalities in the north especially. But I digress.

The tsar or Russia we usurped the Metropolia of Kyiv (or Kiev in the Slavonic language) when the title was changed to "Metropolitan of Moscow" and then later to "Patriarch of Moscow."

Look, Swan, I apologise - I don't want to fight with you. You are an articulate person and we don't have very many of you on the forum these days! We used to have "fight night" on this forum some years back and it was all very enjoyable. One fellow served up 25 points to argue about and several hundred posts later, we had to revise which points we still disagreed on and which we changed our mind on.

I have my own personal emotional issues right now and I don't mean to take it out on you. I can't believe that I'm actually being pursued by a woman who has now gone to my priest to tell him that I have "fallen in love with her." She keeps emailing me to tell me that "No, I do not want to have a romantic relationship with you, Alex!"

So now, rather than give as good as I get from her, I'm just not going to respond to that nonsense which is really playing on my nerves.

I appreciate your highly learned and balanced posts and for putting up with me.

God bless you!

Alex
Would anyone like to hear me talk about C.S. Lewis' "Christianity and the spelling reform"?
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The tsar or Russia we usurped the Metropolia of Kyiv (or Kiev in the Slavonic language) when the title was changed to "Metropolitan of Moscow" and then later to "Patriarch of Moscow."


The title was changed from "Metropolitan of Kiev..." to "Metropolitan of Moscow" during the tenure of Metropolitan Jonah (1448-1461). There was no Tsar around to usurp the title then. The name change was simply a reflection of the fact that the see had not been in Kiev for over a century and that southwest Rus' was politically cut off (it was under the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). Constantinople then established a new metropolitanate in Kiev from which today's Kiev metropolitans descend.

The first Grand Duke of Moscow to call himself "tsar" was Ivan III, but the formal proclamation of a Tsardom comes even later with Ivan IV.

The elevation of Moscow to a patriarchate was done with the agreement and blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople, so again, I don't see how this could be considered a usurpation.

All of this is to say that, if you really want to blame someone for taking the see away from Kiev, blame the Mongols. It was the Mongol invasion that devastated Rus', annihilated most of its cities (including Kiev), and profoundly disrupted cultural, political, and religious life.

Kiev was a dangerous backwater for a while- hence why Metropolitan Maximus felt the need to pack up and move to Vladimir.

Another ultimate result of the weakened state of Rus' is that the Lithuanians and Poles were able to carve out southwest Rus', isolating it from the rest of Rus' under the Golden Horde.

Finally, it was the Mongols who were propping up different principalities in a divide-and-rule strategy, until, to fend off Lithuania, they propped up Moscow too much and it blew up in their faces.

Regarding your personal situation, I am very sorry you've been put in such a distressing situation and I can understand why that would make anyone snappy. I also apologize for my rudeness and pray your situation will improve.
Swan,

The blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch? If keeping him under house arrest until he made the Metropolitan of Moscow a patriarch is considered kosher...
I thank you for your understanding Swan - you corrected many things of my take on the situation.

Thank you, once again.

Alex
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Swan,

The blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch? If keeping him under house arrest until he made the Metropolitan of Moscow a patriarch is considered kosher...


It worked with Pope Vigilius and Constantinople II, didn't it?
Originally Posted by SwanOfEndlessTales
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Swan,

The blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch? If keeping him under house arrest until he made the Metropolitan of Moscow a patriarch is considered kosher...


It worked with Pope Vigilius and Constantinople II, didn't it?

It did indeed, unfortunately.
Here is what His Holiness had to say about his meeting with Patriarch Kirill and His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk's reaction to the Joint Declaration:


Jean-Louis de la Vaisserie, AFP (France): The meeting with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill and the signing of the joint declaration was greeted by the entire world as an historic step. But now today in the Ukraine, Greek Catholics feel betrayed. They speak of a political document that supports Russian politics. In the field, the war of words has reignited. Do you think you’ll be able to go to Moscow? Were you invited by the patriarch? Or, (will you) go to Crete to greet the Pan-Orthodox Council in the spring?

Pope Francis: I’ll begin with the end. I will be present…spiritually. And with a message. I would like to go greet them there at the pan-orthodox synod. They are brothers, but I must respect them. But, I know that they want to invite Catholic observers and this is a good bridge, but behind the Catholic observers I will be praying with my best wishes that the Orthodox move ahead because they are brothers and their bishops are bishops like us.

Then, Kirill, my brother. We kissed each other, embraced, and then a conversation for an hour (Fr Lombardi corrects)…two hours. Old age doesn’t come on its own. (laughs) Two hours where we spoke as brothers, sincerely and no one knows what was spoke about, only what we said at the end publicly about how we felt as we spoke.

Secondly, that statement, that declaration about Ukraine. When I read this, I was a little bit worried because it was Sviatoslav Schevchuk who said that the Ukrainian people, some Ukrainians, also many Ukrainians felt disappointed and betrayed. I know Sviatoslav very well. In Buenos Aires, we worked together for four years. When he was elected – at 42 years old, eh, good man – he was elected major archbishop, he came back to Buenos Aires to get his things. He came to me and he gave me an icon - little like this – of Our Lady of Tenderness. And he told me, ‘This has accompanied me my entire life. I want to leave it to you who accompanied me over the last four years. It’s one of the few things I had brought from Buenos Aires and I keep it on my desk. That is, he’s a man whom I respect and also familiarity. We use “tu” with each other (Editor’s note: “tu” is the informal way of addressing someone in Italian – they speak as friends) and so on.

So, for this it seemed strange to me and I remembered something I said here to you: to understand a piece of news, a statement, you need to seek the hermeneutic of everything.

But, when you said this, it was said in a statement from January 14th, last February, last Sunday…an interview made by brother…I don’t remember…a priest, a Ukrainian priest, in Ukraine it was conducted and it was published. That news, the interview is one page, two, a little bit more, give or take. That interview is on the last page, a little like this. I read the interview and I’ll say this: Schevchuk, in the dogmatic part declares himself to be a son of the Church and in communion with the bishop of Rome and the Church. He speaks of the Pope and his closeness of the Pope and of himself, his faith, and also of the Orthodox people there. The dogmatic part, there’s no difficulty. He’s Orthodox in the good sense of the word, that is in Catholic doctrine, no.

And then, as in an interview like this one, everyone has the right to say his things and this wasn’t done in the meeting, because the meeting, it was a good thing and we have to move forward. This, he didn’t do in the meeting, the encounter was a good thing and we must move forward. This, the second chapter, the personal ideas that a person has. For example, this, what I said about the bishops who move pedophile priests, the best thing they can do is resign. This isn’t a dogmatic thing, but this is what I think. So, he has his personal ideas. They’re for dialoguing and he has a right to have them.

Thirdly…ah, all of what he’s speaking about is in the document, that’s the issue. On the fact of the meeting: the Lord chose to move it ahead, the embrace and all is well. The document. It’s a debatable document and there’s also another addition. In Ukraine, it’s a moment of war, of suffering, with so many interpretations. I have named the Ukrainian people, asking for prayers, closeness, so many times both in the Angelus and in the Wednesday audience. There is this closeness. But the historical fact of a war, experienced as…I don’t know if…well, everyone has their own idea of this war, who started it, what to do and it’s evident that this is a historical issue, but also a personal, historical, existential issue of that country and it speaks of the suffering. And, there I insert this paragraph. You can understand the faithful, because Stanislav told me that so many faithful have written to me saying that they are deeply disappointed and betrayed by Rome. You can understand that a people in this situation would feel this, no? The final document but it is a jotting down of some things. Pardon, it’s debatable on this question of Ukraine. But there, it says to make the war stop, that they find agreements. Also, I personally said that the Minsk accords move forward and are not eliminated. “With the elbows what wasn’t written with the hands.” (Original phrase in Italian: “Con il gomito quello che non e scritto con le mani”)

The Church of Rome, the Pope has always said, ’Seek peace.’ I also received both presidents. Equality, no. And so for this when he says that he’s heard this from his people, I understand it. I understand it. But, that’s not the news. The news is everything.

If you read the entire interview, you’ll see that there are serious dogmatic things that remain, there’s a desire for unity, to move ahead in the ecumenical – and he’s an ecumenical man. There are a few opinions. He wrote to me when he found out about the trip, the encounter, but, as a brother, giving his opinion as a brother. I don’t mind the document how it is. I don’t dislike it in the sense that we need to respect the things that everyone has the freedom to think and in (the context of) this situation that is so difficult. From Rome, now the nuncio is on the border where they’re fighting, helping soldiers and the wounded. The Church of Rome has sent so much help there. It’s always peace, agreements. We must respect the Minsk accords and so on. This is the entirety. But, don’t get scared by that phrase. And this is a lesson that a piece of news must be interpreted with the hermeneutic of everything and not just a part.

de la Vaisserie: did the Patriarch invite you to come to Moscow sometime?

Pope Francis: Patriarch Kirill. I would prefer – because if I say one thing, I have to say another and another and another. I would prefer that what we spoke about, us, alone, will remain only what we said in public. This is a fact. And if I say this, then I’ll have to say another and another…no! The things I said in public, the things he said in public. This is what can be said about the private conversation. To say it, it wouldn’t be private. But, I tell you, I walked out of it happy, and he did too.

Source.
metropolitan Hialrion's interview regarding the Pope-Patriarch meeting and the Joint Declaration is available to read in English: http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=interview&div=102
Let's face it: Metropolitan Hilarion is an enemy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.
And the MP source was obviously wrong about the meeting. It happened. Trust, but verify - still good advice.
There's plenty of red meat double talk coming out of both sides ... or all four religious sides for that matter... regarding Ukrainian matters. Each spokesperson is spinning for their respective audience. All of that serves no real purpose other than to keep the pot boiling. And the pious faithful are the ones left with increasing doubt. Fertile ground for the enemies of eastern and/or Catholic and/or Orthodox religions....

Quote
Fertile ground for the enemies of eastern and/or Catholic and/or Orthodox religions....


Agreed.
© The Byzantine Forum