www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News MP denies reports about a Kirill-Francis meeting in Latin America

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.

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.

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"?

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

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. [catholicnewsagency.com]

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.