The Greeting by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I at the Opening Mass of the Year of Faith
October 12, 2012 35 Comments
We Join in the Hope that the Barrier Dividing the Eastern Church and the Western Church Will be Removed.
Zenit has the report:
Here is the translation of the greeting given by His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, at the Opening Mass of the Year of Faith and on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council. The mass was celebrated in St. Peter’s Square.
***
Beloved brother in the Lord, Your Holiness Pope Benedict; Brothers and Sisters;
As Christ prepared for His Gethsemane experience, He prayed a prayer for unity which is recorded in the Gospel of Saint John Chapter 17 verse 11: “ … keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are”(All scripture from English translation of the Holy Bible, New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.). Through the centuries we have, indeed, been kept in the power and love of Christ, and in the proper moment in history the Holy Spirit moved upon us and we began the long journey towards the visible unity that Christ desires. This has been confirmed in Unitatis Redintegratio § 1:
Everywhere large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians.
Fifty years ago in this very square, a powerful and pivotal celebration captured the heart and mind of the Roman Catholic Church, transporting it across the centuries into the contemporary world. This transforming milestone, the opening of the Second Vatican Council, was inspired by the fundamental reality that the Son and incarnate Logos of God is “ … where two or three are gathered in his name” (Matt.18.20) and that the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, “ … will guide us into the whole truth” (John 16.13).
In the 50 years that have intervened, we recall with vividness and tenderness, but also with elation and enthusiasm, our personal discussions with episcopal members and theological periti during our formative time – then as a young student – at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, as well as our personal attendance at some special sessions of the Council. We witnessed firsthand how the bishops experienced a renewed awareness of the validity – and a reinforced sense of the continuity – of the tradition and faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1.3). It was a period of promise and hope for your Church both internally and externally.
For the Orthodox Church, we have observed a time of exchange and expectation. For example, the convocation of the first Pan-Orthodox Conferences in Rhodes led to the Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences in preparation for the Great Council of the Orthodox Churches. These exchanges will demonstrate the unified witness of the Orthodox Church in the modern world. Moreover, it coincided with the “dialogue of love” and heralded the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church, which was established by our venerable predecessors Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios.
Over the last five decades, the achievements of this assembly have been diverse as evidenced through the series of important and influential constitutions, declarations, and decrees. We have contemplated the renewal of the spirit and “return to the sources” through liturgical study, biblical research, and patristic scholarship. We have appreciated the struggle toward gradual liberation from the limitation of rigid scholasticism to the openness of ecumenical encounter, which has led to the mutual rescinding of the excommunications of the year 1054, the exchange of greetings, returning of relics, entering into important dialogues, and visiting each other in our respective Sees.
Our journey has not always been easy or without pain and challenge, for as we know “narrow is the gate and difficult is the way” (Matthew 7.14). The essential theology and principal themes of the Second Vatican Council – the mystery of the Church, the sacredness of the liturgy, and the authority of the bishop – are difficult to apply in earnest practice, and constitute a life-long and church-wide labor to assimilate. The door, then, must remain open for deeper reception, pastoral engagement, and ecclesial interpretation of the Second Vatican Council.
As we move forward together, we offer thanks and glory to the living God Father, Son and Holy Spirit – that the same assembly of bishops has recognized the importance of reflection and sincere dialogue between our “sister churches” . We join in the “…hope that the barrier dividing the Eastern Church and the Western Church will be removed, and that – at last – there may be but the one dwelling, firmly established on Christ Jesus, the cornerstone, who will make both one” (Unitatis Redintegratio § 18).
With Christ as our cornerstone and the tradition we share, we shall be able or, rather, we shall be enabled by the gift and grace of God – to reach a better appreciation and fuller expression of the Body of Christ. With our continued efforts in accordance with the spirit of the tradition of the early Church, and in the light of the Church of the Councils of the first millennium, we will experience the visible unity that lies just beyond us today.
The Church always excels in its uniquely prophetic and pastoral dimension, embraces its characteristic meekness and spirituality, and serves with humble sensitivity the “least of these My brethren” (Matt. 25.40).
Beloved brother, our presence here signifies and seals our commitment to witness together to the Gospel message of salvation and healing for the least of our brethren: the poor, the oppressed, the forgotten in God’s world. Let us begin with prayers for peace and healing for our Christian brothers and sisters living in the Middle East. In the current turmoil of violence, separation, and brokenness that is escalating between peoples and nations, may the love and desire for harmony we profess here, and the understanding we seek through dialogue and mutual respect, serve as a model for our world. Indeed, may all humanity reach out to ‘the other’ and work together to overcome the suffering of people everywhere, particularly in the face of famine, natural disasters, disease, and war that ultimately touches all of our lives.
In light of all that has yet to be accomplished by the Church on earth, and with great appreciation for all the progress we have shared, we are, therefore, honored to be invited to attend – and humbled to be called to address – this solemn and festive commemoration of the Second Vatican Council. It is fitting that this occasion also marks for your Church the formal inauguration of the “Year of Faith”, as it is faith that provides a visible sign of the journey we have traveled together along the path of reconciliation and visible unity.
In closing, Your Holiness, Beloved Brother, we wholeheartedly congratulate you – together with the blessed multitude assembled here today – and we fraternally embrace you on the joyous occasion of this anniversary celebration.
May God bless you all.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
Intereresting how he tries to disguise the hopeless disagreememnt amongst the so -called Orthodox and their failure to teach magisterially or consistently. The only thing he can pronounce on are green issues! Granted his see is situated in a great Muslim city of nigh on 20 million persons.
The Patriarch does appear, as always, to very politely remind the West of the route to re-union when he discusses the “gradual liberation from the limitation of rigid scholasticism” and “in the light of the Church of the Councils of the first millennium.” The Church has to return to its unified roots. Those roots are found in Christ, Scripture, His Church, His Apostles, and the great fathers of the Church. Those roots can’t be found in medieval scholasticism, the Renaissance, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, or Enlightenment, or in those western councils or divisons that arose during same.
It is equally interesting that he politely chooses not to publicly discuss the hopeless disagreements amongst the Western Church (Roman Catholic and Protestant) as well as the ongoing, long-term ideological division with the RCC amongst “liberals” and “conservatives”.
@Michael: Your statement simply goes way too far, and sadly typical of the EO, “we are the church”, etc. Some form of Scholasticism is simply Pauline, i.e. Jewish Hellenism, the Greco-Roman, etc. The Bible and Word of God did not simply fall out of ther sky! Note, St. Paul (Gal. 4: 4-7). The “existential” reality of the Word of God can never be fenced! Creeds follow revelation!
Let us not forget the hopeless disagreements amongst the Eastern Church (Old Calendarist, Old Ritualists, Old Believers, Oriental, Eastern); which the Pope politely chose not do publicly discuss.
@R.I.W.
YOU simply amaze me with your negative statements toward anything non-Roman Catholic! The nature of the Church is biblically always a Pilgrim Body, there is not a wit of any absolute magisterium in the long history of the whole Church, either East or West. The Church is a true “pillar” (responsibility) and “support” – the firm ground and stay to the living God (locally). But again there is only infallibility and authority in the written Word of God, which is alone God’s Revelation! (2 Tim. 3: 16, and note Paul is actually thinking of the OT, here). Indeed “sola Scriptura” alone is “the primary and absolute norm of doctrine” in the church. “Scripture was identified as the “principium cognoscendi”, the principle of knowing or cognitive foundation of theology, and described doctrinally in terms of its authority, clarity, and sufficiency in all matters of faith and morals. Finally, it ought to be noted that “sola Scriptura” was never meant as a denial of the usefulness of the Christian tradition as a subordinate norm in theology. The views of the Reformers developed out of a debate in the medieval theology over the relation of Scripture and tradition, one party viewing Scripture as the absolute and therefore prior norm, but allowing tradition a derivative but important secondary role in doctrinal statement.” (Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, etc.)
Just give thanks for the fact that the Patriarch was there and spoke well.
Since this is the same “Patriarch” who believes that all women have a right to an abortion without the interference from the Church; the fact that he presumes to teach anyone anything is ludicrous.
Dale, I’d really like to see your documentary proof that the Patriarch believes “all women have a right to an abortion without interference from the Church”. The entire content and context of this purported belief. (In secular societies where the State, not the Church, sets forth such laws, and the State limits the Church’s authority over citizens, what would you want the Church to do about legal abortion in Russia (Orthodox), Germany (RC & Lutheran), and USA (RC, Protestant, Orthodox)? It was the State, not the Church, that legalized abortion and gave women “a right to an abortion”. What did the Apostles tell the early Christians to do about the widespread legal abortion in the Roman Empire?)
Please see:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/10/27/a-not-so-pro-life-patriarch/
And this was stated before he was elected patriarch! He has continued to support abortion on demand. The fact that you do not know this is troublesome.
He is a youtube video of his ethnarc in American calling the present president of the United States, who is the most pro abortionist leader in America, who supports both pre and post natal abortions, the “New Alexander.”
And let us not forget when one of the previous Greek ethnarcs in America declared Mr Dukakis a “Greek Orthodox in good standing.” Although he was not only openly pro-abortion, but was a member of St John’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C.
For any member of this denomination to presume to teach others is problematic at best.
I think that your reasoning that because the state supports it, so must the church, is perhaps one of the best reasons NOT to accept the Byzantine denomination’s complete obedience to civil authorities. it is one thing for most of us to live in societies which openly support abortion, it is quite another thing for the church to simply go along.
Forgot, could you please post where this man has distanced himself from his previous pro-abortionist statements? Otherwise, all of your protestations are simply personal opinions.
Really? A 2009 article in a primarily RC magazine (one I’ve subscribed to for over a decade) citing a 1990 San Francisco Chronicle story? When he was a Metropolitan? So you don’t have anything from him as Patriarch? We both know the long-term historical and unchanging position Orthodoxy has had against abortion. And if we all had $1 for every religious leader of our own denomination who stood next to or said something nice about a politician…we’d all be rich. And I wouldn’t have enough space to cite all the Roman Catholic Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops who hobnob with pro-abortion politicians in Europe, USA, Australia, and elsewhere. I’m thinking it was a RC Archbishop or Cardinal whose seamless garment of life has long been a huge justifyier of pro-abortion politicains in USA.
Sounds like a litany, great or otherwise, of excuses.
Since becoming Patriarch he as also made pro-abortionist statements, do you want me to find them, or perhaps you are prepared to do so yourself?
Once again, he has NEVER distanced himself from these earlier statements either.
In your final contention it appears that there is no difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek religion, hence, getting back to my original contention: why then do you presume that he has anything to teach anyone, anywhere about anything.
If the Greek religion is so very pro-life, it is obviously something that the Patriarch himself must be unaware of. Personally, I cannot imagine a Roman Catholic bishop ever making these sorts of pronouncements, and then getting elected Pope! Perhaps the Pope should be lecturing the Patriarch, and not the other way around.
Oh well, the Patriarch is very fond of the environment….
Dale, If you’re going to state that the Patriarch, as Patriarch, has made pro-abortion statements, then yes, the obligation is on you to substantiate the allegations. Ad hominen isn’t sufficient. [Since he isn't in your chain of command, why worry so much about him? Why not worry about all the liberal RC Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops all around the world? As one not-too-distant example, I'd cite Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee (USA). I'm too reticent to set forth the ugliness of what he did but you might check out his scandal while in office. What is the saying about specs and planks?]
So, since he made these statements in a primarily Roman Catholic magazine (actually, he made them in a completely secular newspaper), for you, they are unsubstantiated? Are you saying he never said these things at all? Or, was it simply a Roman plot to undermine his authority? You asked for evidence, I gave it, from a reliable source, and because it does not fit into your fantasy of the Greek religion, you continue to pretend it does not exist, and yet you lecture me on ad hominem!
Dale, You state that the Patriarch, as Patriarch, has made pro-abortion statements. If you are personally aware of them, please share them. The 22-yr-old SF Chronicle article didn’t involve him as Patriarch. You and I both know the theology of Orthodoxy has been and is firmly pro-life going back to the Apostles.
Michael, take a look at this one, from a Greek source:
http://blog.acton.org/archives/12601-green-patriarchs-web-of-life-has-a-gaping-hole-in-it.html
Dale, Looked over the 2009 blog post. One person’s opinion about what he perceives to be ambiguity. Hardly enough to castigate him for being pro-abortion. The Patriarch has not changed any canons or doctrinal statements. And is most interesting that apparently he hasn’t said or done anything more current since 2009 (1990?) that has warranted anyone else, blogger or otherwise, to call into question his official position on abortion. So we Orthodox are as we always have been everywhere, opposed to abortion.
We also all know the Patriarch has an environmental “agenda” (for lack of a better word) that often motivates him and seems sometimes to dominate his message. And that he treads very carefully indeed regarding the Turks, Islam, Russia (both state and church), church-state relations in historically Orthodox countries, and intra-Orthodox relations.
Interesting song and dance.
It is nice to notice that both Greek Orthodox members of the American congress voted AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban; as did several Roman Catholic members, but none of these, received the title of archon of the Patriarchal see.
In the end, you will simply continue to believe whatever you want to, regardless of the reality.
Dale, Just because there are some “pro-abortion” politicians who are members of a religious group doesn’t make the group “pro-abortion”. America is filled with strident pro-abortion RC politicians at the State and Federal level. Nancy Pelosi is a good example. But we all know the RCC, like Orthodoxy, is against abortion. And the RCC isn’t alone in this regard. Isn’t Harry Reid a Mormon? I wouldn’t say he is too strongly pro-life. In my State, Iowa, all too often the most reliable pro-abortion and pro-homosexual marriage proponents seem to be RCs (former Governors Tom Vilsack & Chet Culver, State Senator (Majority Leader) Mike Gronstal, and US Senator Tom Harkin. I don’t see the 4 IA RC bishops doing anything in regard to the public activity of these politicians.
Plus he accepts contraception and divorce and re-marriage. yet thay also had Rowan Williams address them who also belives in the beauty of gay sex, but supressed that during his term as Archbishop.
The fact that the RCC and Orthodoxy disagree about issues, including divorce, remarriage, and annulments, shouldn’t come as a suprise. That is why we are in separate communions. (Per RC Catechism, divorce and remarriage are allowed, you just require the couple to get an annulment. See paragraph 1629. Rome has greatly expanded and facilitated the granting of annulments since the mid-1960s, making the grounds rather easy. RC marriage theology is odd in that the only RC couples who know they are actually married are those who tried to get their marriage annulled but were denied the annulment. All other RCs marriages are in a state of limbo; at any time in future either spouse could request an annulment and it could be granted )
Indeed I simply don’t see Rome’s back door of annulment!
I agree Annulments have been abused…but in Westminister Archdiocesefor instance , 70 percent fail at the first hurdle. As for Limbo marriages….ask yourself how many catholics are going to be in Heaven! God literally only knows.
In orthodoxy you buy your Church divorce and there is no inquest into what first occured.
Many people ( from all Christian traditions) use the Church for marriage… nice photos..pleasing Mum and Dad…. some homosexual people marry to have children… others marry for money etc this will happen until the end of time. Interestingly sometimes these marraiges last longer than those based on romance and infatuation.God is the judge and the marriage tribunal simply helps Him discover the truth.
The RC marriage tribunal, at least in USA today, has nothing to do with God and exists to allow RCs to divorce and remarry. Outside of traditional grounds for annulling a marriage (e.g., I couldn’t marry my mother or sister or while I’m already married or when I’m 10 or senile), the “modern” RC grounds (e.g., psychological immaturity) are essentially just the use of trendy, hip pop 1960s psychology to allow RCs to divorce and remarry…as has been done since Moses’ time. (In my area of USA, an RC annulment costs a lot more than an Orthodox divorce. RCs “buy” their annulments with both cash as well as good lawyers and cooperation on part of parties who want the outcome, so they can remarry for the 2nd, 3rd, or umpteenth time.)
Ouch there Michael! But, oh an Amen, but sadly so! Note, my point that the whole Church has always really been a sinful but Pilgrim Body!…each of us individually and certainly corporately!
I do agree that the marriage tribunals have become a sort of backdoor to divorce, but Roman Catholics are still made to understand that a marriage is NOT easy to simply walk away from; even if the system is indeed defective. Contrary wise, divorce and remarriage within the Greek denomination is so easy that there is no real sense of sacredness of marriage or marriage as Sacrament (in this, they are, unfortunately, perhaps too close to Anglicanism).
Since divorce was allowed in Old Covenant, we can see that it is a human problem, but even in the NT it is a human sinful problem, (note 1 Cor. 7: 10-24, etc. This chapter is hard, but really demands our reading today!) And btw, this also shows the sinfulness of the visible church, now! There is quite simply no perfection in the Pilgrim Church! And this subject, among others should prove such!
Dale, You might check out the divorce statistics for Orthodox in USA versus Roman Catholics. The stats for RCs here are pretty abysmal. I think the sanctity of sacrimental marriage is alive and well in American Orthodoxy. [And if I had $1 for each of the divorces and remarriages (or marriages outside the RC Church or to previously married spouses where the marriage was never annulled) just of my RC family and friends, I'd have a decent amount of money.] Now if your talking “Catholic” Spain/France/Italy vs “Orthodox” Romania/Greece/Russia, I suspect demographers would say the current state of the institution of marriage in each of these nations is rather tenuous, as throughout Europe,
Michale, I fail to understand your point. Usually, for the Greeks, there is no such thing as a tribunal, the local priests usually simply accept the secular divorce. Finally, can you back up your interesting contentions that more Roman Catholics than members of the Greek church have more divorces? Of course if one looks at the numbers of Roman Catholics and the numbers of Greeks in America, then that would of course be normal; but once again, where are your facts?
But trying to discus these things with a convert, most of whom have the mentality to match, is usually not productive.
Btw, what real point are you guys trying to make here? Rome verses the EO on who has less divorce? If that’s the issue then you both are pressing my point, that the historical church has failed here! Its not a question as to amount, as the principle that sin has entered in here, and in reality there is only the Sacramental Christ! HE alone is the perfect partner, I think this is the essence of St. Paul in Ephesians 5. (Note, verse 32!) But what the heck, I am only a biblical seeking evangelical Anglican presbyter.
Dale, I’m only familiar with the Antiochian Archdiocese in USA, There is a process regarding divorce, remarriage and admittance to communion that involves the divorced person, their parish priest, and the Metropolitan, who has the final say.
Sorry gents I know you want to face each other, but this is an open blog! And, I agree somewhat with Michael, that divorce and remarriag, etc. are really both a local church problem, but only somewhat a problem for the so-called bishop. The civil law gets in here these days, and sort of circumvents the church, so often in the end, the church for all intent has to stand back. I have seen this over and over! WE (the Church) are simply IN and live in a fallen world! I think this is what Paul is somewhat saying in 1 Cor. 5, as too, 1 Cor. 7: 10-12, etc.
Christ changed marriage for Christians into a sacrament. The Byzantine Court infleneced schismatic Orthodoxy..the Church fathers to a man are anti-divorce.Even the Protestant Church calling its self the Church of ireland was anti-divorce until the 1990s.
We live in a sinful, fallen world where we are all sinners; not a perfect world of the sinless. I’m not aware of any religious group that is “pro-divorce”, as if divorce were some universally positive good we should be wanting or striving for. No one wants to see a marriage end in divorce. But the issue is what to do when spouses can no longer remain married (e.g., physical abuse, drug addiction, adultery, etc.), and what to do if they want to re-marry, esp. if one party is “innocent”.
I guess using your language we’d have to say the RCC in America is pro-annulment, using that process to promote divorce and remarriage? Would that make them pro-divorce?
I think all religious groups want stronger, more successful marriages and should actively work to promote both pre-marital programs and post-marriage counseling & assistance. This could include mentoring by long-term married couples to newlyweds.
In reality Christ Himself is the “sacramental” life, and all Christians are to live in that image, not just married folk. Sadly single people somehow get left out here! As I hear this from singles quite often in our culture.