![o{]:Ź)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Moscow Patriarch in favor of Motu Proprio and older Mass
At various times in my articles in The Wanderer, during talks and on this blog I have opined that if we are serious about an authentic ecumenical dialogue, we have to get our liturgical act together: "What must the Orthodox think when they see how we Latins conduct ourselves liturgically?" At the same time, the solemn Mass in the older use of the Roman Rite is as grand as anything the Easterners do.
I see now that the estimable Andrea Tornielli of Il Giornale has posted that the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow and all the Russias, Alexis II, looks with favor on Pope Benedict’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum and the derestriction of the older form of Mass.
He also speaks clearly about his view of relations with the Holy See.
The patriarch had finished celebrating the Divine Liturgy for the Dormition of Mass (15 August, The Assumption), in the similarly named Cathedral at the Kremlin. He was briefly interviewed.
Here are some of the significant points from Mr. Tornielli’s article (my translation):
n. 203 del 2007-08-29 pagina 25
"The recovery and valuing of the ancient liturgical tradition is a fact that we greet positively. We hold very strongly to tradition. Without faithfully guarding the liturgical tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church would not have been in a position to resist during the period of persecution, in the 20’s and 30’s in the 1900’s. In that time we had many new martyrs, whose number can be compared to the epoch of the first Christian martyrs."
Holiness, how do you see the relationship between Rome and Moscow right now?
"It seems that Pope Benedict XVI has repeated may times that he desires to work in favor of dialogue and collaboration with the Orthodox Churches. This is positive."
For years already there has been talk of the possibility of a meeting between you and the Pope. Do you think this is possible? When?
"A meeting between the Pope and Patriarch of Moscow must be well prepared and absolutely ought not risk a reduction to a photo opportunity or to walk around together in front of television cameras. It must be a meeting which truly helps firm up the relations between the two Churches…".
You speak of it as if it were rather remote hypothesis. Why?
"Unfortunately today there are still some Catholic missionary bishops who consider Russia as missionary territory. But Russia, Holy Russia has already been enlightened with a centuries old faith which, thanks be to God, was preserved and passed on in the Orthodox Church, and is not missionary territory for the Catholic Church. This is the first point about which it is necessary that problems be clarified and smoothed in view of a meeting with the Pope. The other problem concerns ‘uniatism’."
Why do the uniate communities, those which maintaining the Eastern Rite and Eastern tradition reentered in full communion with Rome, are regarded as a problem?
"The phenomenon of uniatism is troublesome because we see this tendency also in regions where it never was before, for example in the Eastern Ukraine, Belorussia, Kazakhstan and in Russia herself. When these problems are dealt with and resolved then a meeting between the Pope and Patriarch of Moscow can be considered. Then it will truly have its proper meaning."
Of course his ‘holiness’ this ex-KGB murderer of Catholics hates Uniates, they are Catholic. They subject themselves to the Prince of the Apostles, and he spits on that same Prince. Russia is a mission territory, and it will continue to be such as long as this schismatic ‘Patriarch’ prevents his people from uniting themselves with the One True Catholic Church established by Christ.
Comment by John H — 29 August 2007 @ 10:52 amFr Z, you wrote
The patriarch had finished celebrating the Divine Liturgy for the Dormition of Mass
I think you meant to write: the Dormition of Mary. Or perhaps you were sending a subtle message that the older form of Mass had been “asleep” for several decades and was about to be “resurrected” when the MP comes into effect in September…
Comment by cor ad cor loquitur — 29 August 2007 @ 11:33 amA recently-deceased Ukrainian Catholic physician, long a friend of our family, used to tell – in the kind of chilling detail possible only from the memory of a little child – what it was like watching the Soviet soldiers/police take his father, a seventh-generation Ukrainian Catholic priest, in full-vestments from the Easter morning service “into custody.” According to Doctor K, the soldiers lifted his father up and threw him – vestments and all – into the back of the army truck, which his mother ran after down the road leading from their village until she could run no longer. They did not see him again for 10 years, and count it a miracle that he was released at all! A Russian Orthodox priest was thenceforth driven by a government representative every Saturday night and Sunday to conduct Vigil and Divine Liturgy – though few people submitted to attending such services. Yes, I’m sure Uniatism is a problem for this dour Patriarch, and a constant reminder of Orthodoxy’s shameful role in the “liquidation” (read: martyrdom) of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. We have far higher priorities than kissing his hand – or anything else – in order to have him “deign” to meet with our Holy Father. And I’m sure no one knows that better than Pope Benedict XVI!
Comment by P. Jeremy — 29 August 2007 @ 11:41 amIn regards to ‘uniatism’, is Patriarch Alexis II saying that the Church must acknowledge the Orthodox Church’s independence from the Papacy before any meeting? Or is there something that I am missing?
Comment by Brian Day — 29 August 2007 @ 11:49 amFather,
Comment by danphunter1 — 29 August 2007 @ 12:09 pmAll lands and all men who are not Catholic and not in union with the Supreme Pontiff, are a mission territory since the missionaries prime mission is to convert souls to the One True Church for the salvation of same souls.
God bless you
I remember a discussion with a Greek priest, talking of re-union, he said, “How can we be united with a Church, whose Patriarch with a stroke of a pen dismisses 2,000 years of Holy Tradition. This is not the action of someone who understands the role of the of a Bishop, or the Church, or of the Holy Spirit. This is the act of a vandal and an iconoclast”..
Comment by Fr Raymond Blake — 29 August 2007 @ 12:13 pmI didn’t quite know how to answer him.
Of course his ‘holiness’ this ex-KGB murderer of Catholics hates Uniates, they are Catholic. They subject themselves to the Prince of the Apostles, and he spits on that same Prince. Russia is a mission territory, and it will continue to be such as long as this schismatic ‘Patriarch’ prevents his people from uniting themselves with the One True Catholic Church established by Christ.
Comment by John H
So I take it you wouldn’t want to be a member of the negotiation team.
Comment by RBrown — 29 August 2007 @ 12:36 pmIt seems to me that the issues that divide Catholic from Orthodox are small and minor. The Schism developed out of pride and a thirst for power that latched onto a few small theological issues.
Well, today neither the Catholic nor Orthodox churches enjoy any of the power or prestige they did in the Middle Ages and the theological differences, seen in a humbler light, seem laughable.
Reunion is perhaps vital in this century. It is time to recognize that the (forgive the pun) crux of our Faith is contained in the New Testament, particularly the Gospels. Everything else is theology—suppositions built on that crux, but not revealed Truth.
In the grand scheme of things, does the Progressions of Persons in the Holy Trinity or angelology really matter? Certainly some theology is important (responding to Arianism and Gnosticism come to mind), but the Primacy of Peter has more to do with politics than salvation.
Comment by Matt — 29 August 2007 @ 12:58 pmIssues with the Orthodox are incredibly complex. I
don’t see how they can be resolved, but Rome has
to make up its mind on how it wants to view the East.
The East has a legitimate Tradition,
and many Orthodox fear Roman interference, as Rome
tried to “latinize” its own Eastern allies, and RC’s often
still treat Easterners like “second-class” catholics.
(See Abbott Boniface Lukx’s account of how the Byzantines
Catholics were disparaged by Cardinals at Vat.II as a case
in point). The Patriarchates are a thorny issue, as
the Orthodox truly viewed the creation of Roman
counterparts as a real offense against Tradition.
I don’t see what this action really accomplished.
There really shouldn’t be latin Catholic missions in
Russia, if we hope for unity, but at the same time what
does “union” really mean?
Rome is also having problems with its Eastern counterparts.
It is a bit of a double standard….for instance Ukraine, which has the
largest Roman-allied Eastern Church, has no
patriach due to political reasons involving
the orthodox, while other tiny churches do get their own
patriarchs.
How much Easternization is valid? Ukrainian Catholic
churches have removed the filioque clause from their
Nicene Creeds (usually blacked out with a sharpie in
the missal) in an effort to get back to their roots.
Yet, how to reconcile the divergent courses of history
between West and East? What of all the Western councils
and their western-idiosynchratic theology plus the few Eastern
councils, that the other does not recognize?
The Novus Ordo was yet another stumbling block….as
we removed a lot of Eastern-comparable traditions
in the effort to shmooze with “loser” denominations
like the decaying, liberal mainline European branches.
The Novus Ordo was not part of any effort to
dialouge with Evangelicals, who are the “real” force of modern
protestantism anyhow.
I hope that the Extraordinary Rite will accomplish a major step
Comment by Matt Robinson — 29 August 2007 @ 1:00 pmtowards a measure of liturgical reconcilation.
Sorry for the double post, but I don’t see how Orthodox
complicity with Stalin has any bearing on future union.
It wouldn’t have had any bearing on apostolic
succession.
There have been many wicked RC Bishops, and even some
Popes, but this does not invalidate our succession.
(Is not the complicity of our own Bishops in an utterly
disorderd “renewal” and their allowing our holy institutions to “go to the
dogs” just as spiritually devastating from a historical
perspective as Orthodox complicity with communism??).
Look at the recent scandal in Poland, involving double-agent
RC priests, working for the Soviets….exactly the same
problem there. Pot calling the kettle black.
Many Orthodox clergy died to protect their faith,
so it is not fair so smear tens of millions of Russian
Christians who died under Communist persecution, by
pointing to the actions corrupt hierarchy.
If we can’t forgive that (my own Mother is Ukrainian
Comment by Matt Robinson — 29 August 2007 @ 1:16 pmby the way) then how should we expect them to let go of
1204AD and their list of grievances?
The primary difficulty between the Western Church and the Eastern Church (according to an Eastern Rite Catholic Bishop I was once talking to ) is that they have spent the past thousand years hating each other. I regret to see that bitterness and triumphalism towards the Orthodox are still to be found in some of the contributions to this blog. Get over it! Folks! You’re part of the problem rather part of the solution.
Of course what was done to that “Uniat” priest being dragged from the Altar on Easter sounds horrifying but that was the Soviets, not the Orthodox who had their own martyrs during those days. Those were terrible times.
What about the crusaders sacking Constantinople, the Polish armies surrounding Moscow and the dubious situation surrounding the birth of the “Uniats” themselves? A lot has happened over the past millenium and it has left a legacy of gudges and mistrust. As for the compromises with the Communists, it is too easy to make rash judgements. Back in the 1930’s the Russian Church was reduced to about two bishops. The compromises meant that people could receive the sacraments. Let God be the judge.
It is time to put the past behind us and for those who think that Russia is mission territory I can only say that Pope Benedict STRONGLY disagrees with you as did his predecessor.
Comment by David M.O'Rourke — 29 August 2007 @ 1:39 pmOne of the most telling points in the ‘Ottaviani intervention’ is the sarcasm directed towards the idea that the NO would improve our relations with the Orthodox. The text rightly points out that Bugnini and Co. were gunning for precisely those Gallican elements in the liturgy that historically connect the Roman rite to the East.
Which reminds me that I haven’t seen anybody mention the great Cardinal Ottaviani since the MP. If there is such a thing in Heaven as having the last laugh, it certainly belongs to him.
Comment by David Kubiak — 29 August 2007 @ 1:46 pmMatt,
“In the grand scheme of things, does the Progressions of Persons in the Holy Trinity or angelology really matter?”
Everything Dude! What would differentiate the 3rd person from the 2nd person in the Holy Trinity? Nothing! That means there would be no thing to differentiate the HS from the Son, which in turn would mean that they were one and the same, which would be heresy because that would essentially deny the Trinity… and this is one of the reasons for the schism.
Then the Holy Spirit would be mediated by the 2nd person which would mean that the Holy Spirit and God the Father are not immediate. That is a mind-blowing idea. Hey Jesus, tell God the Father that…
Comment by Jeff — 29 August 2007 @ 1:47 pmSincerely, Jeff
Matt writes:
The Schism developed out of pride and a thirst for power that latched onto a few small theological issues.
I agree that the pride and ambition of Photius, Caerularius, etc. are primarily responsible for the schism. Politics also played a role, as the Ottoman Turks surely did not want any sympathizer of union with the Roman Church to be the Oecumenical Patriarch.
The Primacy and Infallibility of the Pope and the Procession of the Holy Ghost are all truths that God has revealed through His Church.
Matt Robinson asks:
If we can’t forgive that (my own Mother is Ukrainian by the way) then how should we expect them to let go of 1204AD and their list of grievances?
The Sack of Constantinople took place over 800 years ago and is well outside of living memory. All condemn it. Do the Orthodox condemn the robbery of Catholic property under Stalin? Have they moved to restore it?
Comment by dcs — 29 August 2007 @ 1:49 pmUsually I don’t post responses to posts or comments, but after reading some of the comments on this post I feel obliged to say something.
I was going to forward a link to this article to a dear Eastern Orthodox friend who shares the same concerns about liturgy that I do, but after reading a thoughtless and unnecessarily inflammatory remark (John H) and one by someone who is probably very well-intentioned, maybe a bit uninformed, and maybe not fully explaining his position regarding this complex subject (danphunter1), I am unable to forward this on (except the text of Father’s post) because I am deeply saddened by what some of my fellow Catholic brethren have said.
Regarding this issue, charity and well-informed thoughts are always the vehicle for growth in grace on both sides of the fence. I am fully aware that this is an “informal” blog setting, but because of the nature of the setting, like it or not your comments are available for the whole world to see. I am ashamed that my Orthodox friends could potentially read these comments which neither reflect the mind of Pope Benedict nor of the Church.
Comment by Jenny — 29 August 2007 @ 1:54 pmWhile I can understand why the Orthodox are upset about the formation of the Eastern Catholic Churches, they do have their own sins against Eastern Catholics to repent of, as the invaluable Fr. Taft points out in this essential essay (the first one on the url below):
http://jbburnett.com/theology/theol-ch-ecumenism.html
Comment by Dale Price — 29 August 2007 @ 2:05 pmJenny,
Comment by danphunter1 — 29 August 2007 @ 2:20 pmDo you believe that the Catholic Church headed by the successor of Peter, the Supreme Pontiff is the one true Church founded by Christ for the salvation of souls?
And if you believe this, do you believe that Christ mandated that His priests go forth into the world and baptise and convert all men to His Church?
If you believe this then what I said was not uninformed, but rather, scripturally based.
The work of the missionary is to primarily convert all men to the on true Church, the Catholic Church as founded by Christ our Head and watched over by the Supreme Pontiff, who at the present time is His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
God bless the Russian Orthodox Church, may she come into full union with Christ in the True Church.
Deo Gratias.
If the world continues to become more anti-Christian, events on the ground may eventually do more to bring about practical union among Orthodox and Catholics than any high-level meetings. For an interesting take on this read Vladimir Soloviev’s “A Short Story of Antichrist.” Soloviev was a 19th century Russian Orthodox philosopher (and btw the Dostoevsky’s model for Alyosha in The Brothers Karamozov) who projected a future in which a vehement worldwide persecution drives loyal Christians together.
Comment by CDB — 29 August 2007 @ 2:35 pmOf course what was done to that “Uniatâ€Â priest being dragged from the Altar on E