www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope Asks Patriarch of Constantinople for Regular Contacts

Code: ZE02120104

Date: 2002-12-01

Pope Asks Patriarch of Constantinople for Regular Contacts
Sends Message to Orthodox Leader on Feast of St. Andrew

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 1, 2002 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II asked Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, "first among equals" among the Orthodox, to maintain more regular contacts, in order to arrive more rapidly at full communion.

The proposal was expressed in a papal message given to the Orthodox leader by Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The message was relayed Saturday, feast of St. Andrew, patron of the ecumenical patriarchate.

The cardinal handed over the message at the end of the Sacred Liturgy, presided over by Bartholomew I, in Fanar, the see of the patriarchate. The gesture will be returned by the patriarchate, which will send an Orthodox delegation to Rome on June 29, the feast of St. Peter, brother of the Apostle Andrew.

The memory of the two saints, "invites us to seek together, day after day, full communion to carry out our common mission of reconciliation in God and to promote an authentic peaceful and Christian spirit, in a world marked by tragic divisions and armed conflicts," the papal message explained.

The quest for unity led John Paul II to propose to the Orthodox patriarch "more frequent forms of communication and regular and reciprocal exchanges among ourselves to make our relations more harmonious and to coordinate our common efforts more effectively."

The Holy Father said he shared Bartholomew I's profound desire to "relaunch the theological dialogue to reach a new phase, following the uncertainties, difficulties and hesitations of the last decade."

Dear Esteemed Adminstrator,

Thank you for sharing this.

Imagine I'm Orthodox not-in-union-with-Rome for a moment.

And I respond to this with, "More papal rhetoric - we know what Rome's intentions are with respect to Orthodoxy."

Your response?

Alex

Alex,

Most Orthodox are charitable and accepting of the work of the Holy Father. They see him as a prayerful man desiring to do the Lord�s will, working toward full communion between West and East. They see his effort as genuine even when they disagree with him.

Sadly, there are also some Orthodox who wish to distort the Holy Father�s intentions with respect to Orthodoxy. Some of them are merely skeptical because of Rome�s past failings in this regard. Others are simply ignorant. There are even a few who purposely distort the Holy Father�s intentions to further their own causes.

There are several things we can do:

-First, we can pray for them and ask the Spirit to lead them in all things.

-Second, we can charitably and repeatedly ask them to be open-minded enough to examine the specific actions the Holy Father has taken regarding Orthodoxy. [Among other things, the Holy Father�s apology to the Orthodox for previous offenses against them by the Catholic Church during his trip to Greece is most telling of his intentions.]

-Third, we can urge them to take seriously the invitation of Pope John Paul II to help him redefine the Petrine ministry in a way the can best serve a reunited Church in the Third Millennium.

-Fourth, when we see evidence of incorrect behavior towards Orthodoxy by anyone in the Catholic Church we should take the appropriate steps to defend Orthodoxy. If such behavior occurs in the Vatican we are to call attention to it and ask for appropriate corrective action. [Most of the offences committed by those in the Church against others are because of ignorance.]

-Fifth, we should always take care to be bright lamps of Orthodoxy within Catholic communion. We have made much progress in this during this most recent generation but we still have much work to do to be who we are called to be.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

Words to live by!

And to pray with . . .

Alex

I am sure that the Holy Father has the best intentions and that he truly wants to restore full communion with the Orthodox as soon as possible with full respect of the independence and canonical territory of the traditional Orthodox Patriarchates, and I am sure that most Orthodox think the same. Unfortunately it is obvious for Orthodox that there are many of Roman Bishops and priests who do not follow the precepts of John Paul II and the Catholic Church, specially the charismatics and other groups, and who have seriously damaged and ridiculed the image of the Catholic Church in the eyes of the Orthodox.

Some would say it is important for both Churches to "clean the house" first so that we are totaly prepared for a serious dialogue. It is specially necessary for the Orthodox Churches to deal with the serious divisions and the problems of jurisdictionalism and canonical territories first, and to reach a consensus on the dialogues with the Roman Church. At the same time it would be good if John Paul II and the Roman Church puts more atention on the problem of liturgical abuse, charismatism, proselitism, and other issues that have damaged the image of the Roman Church in the eyes of the Orthodox (indeed, specially in the New Continent)

I hope this comment doesn't offend people, it is just an opinion.

I don't think it's bad for Remie to make these comments. Although it seems pessismistic but it's a taste of REALITY. So what he say is very true.

So I agree with him as well as the other posters.

I think, in my observation of history, events, etc., that communication breakdown is one of the main factors of the Great Schism. That these Churches have ceased to communicate (not willingly) because of geographical and political reasons (countries changed, civil government changed, etc.).

It's really very very sad to see that we aren't communicating! That's absolutely NO EXCUSE AT ALL!!! for not communicating! We have telephones, cell phones, fax, e-mails, internet, pagers, and God knows what else!!! NO EXCUSE!

Let me illustrate an example:

The Roman Catholic Church (as well as Universal Catholic Church) by Pope John Paul have issued an OFFICIAL document declaring that the Father is the SOURCE of the Holy Spirit (not as "The Father and the Son" as in the Filoque clause said). It merely explained the RCC side of what Filoque meant. So it was indeed a communication break down and language barrier that have caused this very sad MISUNDERSTANDING on the Orthodox's part on what the Catholic's true interpretation of Filoque. So basically it meant "thru the Son" not "WITH the Son."

And my point is this...my Orthodox priest friend DID NOT KNOW THAT or have NOT heard of the DECLARATION of this by the Catholic Church! I'm like "Where have you been" (of course I said that in my head).

Another example: Pope John Paul II himself have invited the Orthodox to participate in re-defining the role of papacy. Why the Orthodox Church HAVE NOT YET responded??? WHY WHY WHY WHY???? The Orthodox would indeed have to be extremely FOOLISH not to do so! So, I conclude it may perhaps because they haven't heard of it yet (not all of them though) or maybe they have simply overlooked that? I mean, come on! I thought the Orthodox would be extremely THRILLED to accept the Holy Father's invitation!!!

So, in conclusion, I think starting up a consistent and constant line of communication is very very VERY important. Like, informing each other of what's going on. What documents have been made. What decisions the RCC/Orthodox have made, etc. Just basically informing each other what's going on. I would think everybody would be very surprised that we are on the same page!

I really think that in the Catholic's part, we are ready and waiting for the Orthodox to swallow up the SIN OF PRIDE to accept and be serious enough to have a dialogue. I really think the Holy Father have bent his butt over deep and long enough. So, in a way, the Orthodox need a kick in the butt for being so PRIDEFUL.

I do agree with Remie's comment about the RCC bishops and priests as well as faithful, they have A LOT TO LEARN!!! They can do some serious damage to the relationship with the Orthodox as well as Eastern CAtholics. They need to stop being so prideful and be so EGOISTIC that the RCC is the "best" Church, etc. If I have a belt, I'd whack their butts for being foolish in many ways. I can certainly understand where the Orthodox is coming from, but to have it from RCC, that's so bad...it's disgusting!

Ohhh ahhh...now I have it all off of my weeny beanie chest!

Let us pray that our Church leaders as well as leaders of Orthodox take a step forward to start constant communication. It's very important.

God bless.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Thanks for your comments SPundas:

You write in various opportunities:

"Why the Orthodox Church HAVE NOT YET responded??? WHY WHY WHY WHY????"

I'm convinced that the heart of the problem is that there's no Orthodox Church but various leaders Orthodox Churches extremely zealous of their independence and too focused on territorial an political issues. It is not surprising that the Churches are not able to hold a serious theological and ecclesiological dialogues with the Catholic Church, if there's no consensus about important issues among Orthodox. Even the Patriarch of Constantinople is not able to do anything because other Churches specially Moscow are always criticizing the EP and even denying its right to bestow its primacy of honour.

I know it is pessimistic, but I do have hopes for the future, I hope the next generations of Bishops and Patriarchs will not be so focused on territorial issues and would take more care of Church unity, but as I previously said, we must start by uniting ourselves and unfortunately this has not happened. There's the idea of a new ecumenical council )I don't mean it must be added to the 7 Councils!), but this would not be welcomed by some of our brothers (just think about what the ROCOR and the Old Calendarists would say (it would cause more divisions. Most hierarchs (specially Greek ones) when requested about the idea of an Ecumenical Council, often put the example of Vatican II, saying that it would not cause benefits for Orthodox and would only cause divisions.

Maybe it is too soon to think about restablishing full administrative communion, there must be at least an agreement on the sacraments for example (at least the recognition of the validity of Baptism and Chrismation at first, and some level of intercommunion).

The traditional opposition to this is not as strong as it was before, specially because communion under both species tends to become a common practice n the Latin Church, and few Orthodox would state that a Eucharist is not valid when it is done with unleavened bread. The problem would be the issue of how the bread and the wine are consacrated (there would be some doubts with the new rite that were not present in the old one, I again mention Paul de Ballester, Orthodox Bishop of Mexico, now deceased, who studied very much Vatican II and liturgical reformms, and its impact in future relationships with the Orthodox), and most of all, that communion implies a unity that doesn't exist, but at least a limited case of intercommunion would be a second step.

Greetings All,

As an orthodox united with rome, I have a few things to add to this discussion.

1. I don't think unity will ever happen until the Orthodox themselves have unity. There are Orthodox jurisdictions that do not even talk to each other.

2. The Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Anticoch and Jesusalem, I think I am leaving someone out, need to meet and discuss this. They are the original and need to work this out.

3. There is a very large anti-Rome sentiment, atleast in the Greek Archdicese here in Boston. I attend the Seminary here in Boston, and a Professor got up in class last Wednesday, and completely distorted to the view on several issues. I am hoping this week to set him straight, without affecting my grade of course.

Just some things to think about.

Peter

I am glad that the Pope continues to try to talk with us. As to why we respond "so slowly", remember the divisions between us have been around for a long time. Also, let's face it, there are some issues that we will never compromise on, like Papal Supremacy and infailiability. Also, we are still upset at Rome's attempts to put bishops in Russia. Dialogue is great. The tensions between East and West have been too high for too long. I hope we can be in communion one day, but a peaceful understanding is probably the realistic goal.

Dear Friends,

If there were more Orthodox and Catholic Christians like you here, unity wouldn't be very far off at all!

Alex

Different posters have said the following things in this thread. I have seen similar thoughts expressed in many other threads on this board. What I don�t understand is why people continue to represent the division between Catholic & Orthodox as one that can be resolved without admitting there are real theological differences. Often people act as if there are no serious theological differences.

I admit that *possibly* the filioque might be a theological misunderstanding. However, it touches on another (more important) theological point: that the Pope can make changes all by himself to doctrinal formulae that were defined in an ecumenical council. Don�t get me wrong - it�s not my purpose here to support or reject this claim. But it is my point to say that it is obvious that the Catholics say the Pope can do this and the Orthodox say he cannot. These 2 theological positions are 180 degrees apart. As are the stances of the 2 sides on universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility.

I think the Pope is sincere in his motives for wanting control of/universal jurisdiction over the Orthodox churches - he wants this so there will be an undivided church. Yet he does want control over the Orthodox and the Orthodox recognize this -- where is the misrepresentation in saying plainly that the Pope desires control over (for whatever benign reasons) the Orthodox? Is this not true?

Interesting. 2 things come to mind:
a. what is this document?
b. Papal encyclicals are not held to be infallible and could be refuted later so this �official� position could be refuted later

I think the poster represents the views of many Catholics. Yet I find it amazing that he would say this. The obvious answer to the question is because the Orthodox know that none of the real theological differences are up for grabs. Only the way the Pope implements them is up for discussion -- and of course future Popes could always decide to change things since they are not bound by the disciplinary decisions of even ecumenical councils or prior popes.

Why do Catholics resort to such sin themselves? Is it not a sin against charity to call the Orthodox PRIDEFUL just because we have sinccere theological differences that the Catholics have made it plain are not up for grabs at such dialogue? Again, because the Orthodox know full well that the Pope is not saying he will take back the Catholic claims of universal jurisdiction or papal infallibility. Why is this so hard to understand? Why would any Orthodox church want to dialogue with someone who is saying �I want to be in control over you.�

Jporthodox said
Yes, this is obviously the Orthodox position. Why is it so hard to comphrehend that the Orthodox do not want to be taken control over anymore than Catholics do? That they have a sincerely held belief that nobody can establish doctrine by himself?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Only God can read minds. When someone says something, I cannot simply jump to this statement: 'Ah, you say X, but you really mean Y.' I need some external manifestation to give me reason to presume someone's words do not match intentions and acts. Stale evidence does not suffice. People and institutions can change over time. The Unitarians are not the same as the Unitarians of the XVIth century. Neither are the Congregationalists, Lutherans, and Anglicans. I imagine even atheism has a few different twists.

Secondly,I wish we would stop talking in power paradigms: "control," "dictates," "decrees." Christ said that if we loved him, we would follow His commandments. Christ did not use a power paradigm. He used a love paradigm. God did not make us puppets: He gave us free will so we would love Him freely. We should "submit ourselves to one another.." out of love, not "prerogatives," "pride," "constitutional rights" or what other catch phrase you chose. These catch phrases divide the Body, and open the door wider to the devil's machinations, be it heresy, scandal, or whatever. As "pessimistic" as inter-bishop relations seem, I have faith that love in Christ will triumph. Love - not any other - is the key to this.

My unworthy but seriously concerned opinion.

God be with you all.

Christopher
Armenian Catholic

Dear Eric:

You identify primacy and immediate jurisdiction with "control". The dimensions of primacy and juridiction are exactly what could be defined and refined in dialog. Leaping to an extreme interpretation advances nothing; portraying such an interpretation as self-evident is indeed, IMO, a misrepresentation.

Your repeated comments on the the Pope's license to invent doctrine, are simply not consistent with the foundations, proclamation, or practice of the definitions of Vatican I. Bishop Kallistos, talks about Orthodox "...content simply to attack the Roman doctrine of the Papacy (as they understand it)..." Part of the value of dialog is to make sure that "as 'they' understand it" is the same for all of the "theys" in the discussion.

djs

It is my understanding that most of the serious theological differences appeared after the schism and as a result of the schism: Papal Infalibility, Immaculate Conception and other were developped centuries after the schism.
The only probable causes of the schism would be the Papal Supremacy and the filioque, and it is sad to think that those problems could have been resolved without the selfish attitudes of Popes, Patriarchs, and civil authorities.

The problem are the doctrines that the Roman Church developped so many centuries after the schism, which are an obstacle, because the Orthodox Church is esencially the same since 1054 (However there are some innovations that would be discussed: the national patriarchates that were installed, divorce...)

Dear Alex,

That is not necessary to be an Orthodox not-in-union-with-Rome to refuse Vatican rhetoric and to be suspicious about Rome's real intentions with respect to Orthodoxy (I am not talking about the intentions of the pope in this very moment). The fact is that both the lessons of the past and the present tell us that when Rome speaks about Orthodox in communion with Rome it means Orthodox under the power of Rome.

Dear Administrator,

You say “Most Orthodox are charitable and accepting of the work of the Holy Father. They see him as a prayerful man desiring to do the Lord's will, working toward full communion between West and East. They see his effort as genuine even when they disagree with him. Sadly, there are also some Orthodox who wish to distort the Holy Father's intentions with respect to Orthodoxy. Some of them are merely skeptical because of Rome's past failings in this regard. Others are simply ignorant. There are even a few who purposely distort the Holy Father's intentions to further their own causes”.

The only idea that everybody do and must love the pope and accept his words (Orthodox included) shows that there is something sick in Catholic Ecclesiology or better in Catholic ecclesiological attitudes (please do not take it as a personal attack towards your person I take your words like the expression of the Catholic general mentality after I Vatican Council). Are we Catholics “charitable and accepting of the work of the Orthodox Patriarchs”? Imagine a Russian Orthodox saying “Most Catholics are charitable and accepting of the work of the Patriach of Moscow. They see him as a prayerful man desiring to do the Lord's will, working toward full communion between West and East. They see his effort as genuine even when they disagree with him. Sadly, there are also some Catholics who wish to distort the Patriach's intentions with respect to the Catholic Church. Some of them are merely skeptical because of Moscow's past failings in this regard. Others are simply ignorant. There are even a few who purposely distort the Patriarch's intentions to further their own causes”. That is just ridiculous, is not it?

Dear spDundas,

You say “The Roman Catholic Church (as well as Universal Catholic Church) by Pope John Paul have issued an OFFICIAL document declaring that the Father is the SOURCE of the Holy Spirit (not as "The Father and the Son" as in the Filoque clause said)”. Sorry, I thought that it was the Council of Florence which had issued and official document declaring that the Father is the only SOURCE of the divinity. That is just the Catholic faith, to say the contrary is an heresy. There is nothing new in proclaiming that the Father is the only principle and source of the Holy Spirit.

Dear frinds,

Most of you consider that the Catholic Church has made many important steeps towards the union with the Orthodox Church in the last years, I am sorry to disagree: from my point of view Rome has done absolutely NOTHING during the last years to remove the obstacles towards the union with our Orthodox brothers. If you whant to know what I consider important steeps towards the union with the Orthodox Church I give you some examples:

- Removal of the “filioque” from the symbol of faith of the Roman Mass according to the liturgical tradition of the Roman Church before 1014. You can not be in communion with the Orthodox Church and keep the "filioque". Reformulation of the Decree of Union of the Council of Florence which states that Byzantine in communion with Rome should accept both dogmatically and canonically speaking the addiction of the “filioque”.

- Reformulation of the Catholics dogmas of Papal infability, Inmaculate Conception, Original Sin and Purgatory so that they should express the faith of the whole Church in a way acceptable both from the Western and the Eastern theological perspective (The Western Church can not impose its theological tradition and its theological categories to the eastern Church, Saint Agustin is not better or more Catholic that Saint John Damascene, whose feast we do celebrate today, just because of being Father of the Western Church).

- Reform of the Eastern Code of canon Law according to the canons of the Ecumenical councils and the local councils and canonical tradition of the Eastern Churches (Orthodox in communion with Rome not under Rome).

- The communion under both sacramental species must become again compulsory in the Western Church. Christian initiation must recover its unitary character according with the ancient tradition of the Roman Church.

Why have the Church of Rome done nothing about it till the moment? Are only our Orthodox brothers those who do not like the union and do not work for it? Are we so good as we think? Are they as bad as we use to think?

Yours in Christ
F