www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Russians leave ecumenical talks in rift with Constantinople

Comment: The Evil One does not want the Great Schism to be healed. So, he finds ways to constantly stir up animosities.
Dn. Robert

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=54067

Russians leave ecumenical talks in rift with Constantinople

Ravenna, Oct. 10, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Russian Orthodox delegates have walked out of a joint session of Catholic and Orthodox theologians, highlighting the sharp disagreements among the world's Orthodox leaders.

A delegation from Moscow left the meeting, being held in Ravenna, Italy, after learning that a delegate from the Estonian Apostolic Church would be included in the ecumenical talks. The Estonian Apostolic Church has gained canonical recognition from the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, but the Russian Orthodox Church, which still claims authority over the Orthodox community in Estonia, disputes that status.

The dispute calls attention to enduring conflicts over authority in the Orthodox world, with the Moscow patriarchate resisting the power of Constantinople. Although the Russian Orthodox Church is by far the largest of the Orthodox churches, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has traditionally been recognized as the "first among equals" of the world's Orthodox leaders.

This week's meeting of Catholic and Orthodox theologians, being held in Ravenna, is the second such meeting after a 6-year breakdown in the ecumenical talks. Since the talks have resumed, the main source of tension has been not between Catholic and Orthodox representatives, but between Moscow and Constantinople.

At the most recent meeting of the joint Catholic-Orthodox commission, held in Serbia in 2006, representatives from the Moscow patriarchate strongly criticized a statement which, they argued, implied that the Ecumenical Patriarch held a position analogous to that of the Roman Pontiff, as the acknowledged leader of the Orthodox world. The Patriarch of Constantinople, they said, has primacy of honor and some coordinating functions within the Orthodox world, but no authority over other patriarchs.

At those 2006 talks the delegates from Moscow insisted that they could continue the talks only if "an ecclesiological model in which the Patriarch of Constantinople occupies the place of an �Eastern Pope� is not imposed on the Orthodox Church." This year's walkout similarly involves the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch: in this case, to grant canonical recognition to an Orthodox hierarchy.

(sigh)

I think this walkout by the ROC-MP delegation (2 official delegates led by Bishop Hilarion of Vienna) from the 10th Plenary Session of the International Commission in Ravenna, Italy, is the repercussion of the "defeat" of the ROC-MP at the conclusion of the Belgrade meeting (9th Plenary Session) last year.

The issue then was of "leadership" and, now at Ravenna, the issue is "authority."

On the issue of "leadership" last year in Belgrade, Bishop Hilarion wanted the full Commission to vote on the leadership role of the EP over the Orthodox delegations (15 Autocephalous Orthodox Churches), with Metropolitan Zizioulas as Co-Chairman for the Orthodox and Cardinal Kasper as Co-Chairman for the Catholic side.

Sensing that the issue involved only the Orthodox side, Cardinal Kasper proposed that the issue be decided upon by the Orthodox delegations amongst themselves. By a vote of 13 to 1 (Bulgaria's delegation was not present at the 2006 Belgrade meeting), Bishop Hilarion's motion was defeated and Met. Zizioulas remained, and still remains, as the Co-Chairman for the Orthodox side.

I hope the work of the International Commission will not be derailed by this Russian walkout. 14 out of 15 Orhtodox delegations should be enough?

Why do the Russians continue to do this?

As a Roman Catholic I have a hard time understanding why the Russian Orthodox seem to complicate so many things. The Russian Church is by and large small. (Compared to the Roman one and the Protestants)

What is all of the trouble about?

If they really are a Church of Christ (as is claimed) then where is Jesus in their statements and actions?

This is something that Orthodoxy is going to have to work out internally. (sigh) is right!

I make no judgment as to whether or not the Russian Church should have left the talks. However, I must ask: what does their size have to do with things?

Ryan

It is not for me to judge, but sometimes pride is a very strong vice, even in those, religious and secular, who are called to be closest to God.

I don't know what is always the right thing to do, and sometimes people are very strong on the 'matter of principle', but at some point in the Christian life, it is amazingly liberating to just give in and humble oneself, deferring to the more dominant party that wants to be deferred to, as long as nothing unethical or immoral is involved.

Ofcourse, the problem here is: WHICH side, Constantinople or Moscow, is the side in this particular situation, that wants to be deferred to-- or do they both?!? EEK! LOL!

Alice

Ecumenism is not for the faint in heart.

Ray

By size, I only mean that the Russian Orthodox seem to "throw their weight around" but it is not very big (comparatively speaking).

But within Orthodoxy, however, it is the largest communion.

Gordo

One of the aims of the Moscow Patriarchate is a "re-alignment" to make themselves the "first among equals" in the Eastern Orthodox world. A few years ago a representative of theirs was expouding this idea to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the point that the Moscow Patriarchate is so much larger than the Ecumenical Patriarchate and should therefore hold the primacy.

The official at the Ecumenical Patriarchate listened courteously, and then posed a question: "if size and numbers are the determining factors, why, then, did the Russians not concede the primacy of the international Communist movement to the Chinese?"

The Russian reaction can be imagined.

Fr. Serge

Perhaps no one should be first among equals? Sometimes I suspect that the whole concept has nothing to with the Church of the first two centuries and is a product of the post-Constantine era.

Joe

But Joe, one apostolic see was very clearly given the right of primacy, and Ignatius and Irenaeus mention it explicitly in the 2nd century.

The notion of collegiality without primacy is as difficult to imagine as a coin with only one side, or, as the Zen koan talks about, "one hand clapping". Primacy (when exercised "in love") protects the integrity of collegiality as a personal witness to Christ apart from subjection to State power, and collegiality is the raison d��tre of the primacy. The two are interdependent and its time they were fully reconciled. To reconcile the two would go a long way in helping to end the divorce between the Orthodox East (and West) and the Catholic West (and East).

In ICXC,

Gordo

I don't think that either St. Irenaeus or St. Ignatios of Antioch envisioned a primacy of one church within the Universal Church. I think that if you look at the context of their statements, you will find that Rome has a regional primacy because it is so well known.

Joe