Pope Francis meets with Patriarch Kirill in Havana, Cuba on Feb. 12, 2016. / L’Osservatore Romano.
Rome Newsroom, Apr 27, 2022 / 12:15 pm (CNA).
The long-awaited second meeting between Pope Francis and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church will not take place for now. The pope himself announced the news in an interview with the Argentine newspaper La Nacion published on April 22.
So we will have to wait longer for the next encounter between the pope and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. This allows further time to consider where the two Church leaders could eventually meet.
One location spoken about behind the scenes is Bratislava, the capital of the Central European country of Slovakia, which the pope visited last September.
Pope Francis told reporters as he returned from Malta earlier this month that the Middle East was being considered as a possible location for the meeting, thus confirming rumors that had spread since the start of 2022.
When Lebanese President Michel Aoun announced that Pope Francis would visit Lebanon on June 12-13, some concluded that the summit would take place in the Land of the Cedars. But the organizers had from the beginning intended the meeting to take place in Jerusalem, perhaps just after the Lebanon trip.
Jerusalem was considered an ideal location for various reasons. For one, the Moscow Patriarchate does not view it as a place where the Orthodox are discriminated against. It is, above all, a neutral territory outside of Europe, where Catholic-Orthodox tensions persist.
The historic first meeting between Pope Francis and Kirill took place at Havana airport in Cuba, another country outside Europe where the Orthodox do not consider themselves to be persecuted.
There was another idea: to echo in Jerusalem the landmark embraces of Athenagoras I and Paul VI in 1967 and Bartholomew I and Pope Francis in 2014. This act would have made it clear that both the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Moscow have strong friendships with Rome.
For Moscow, it would have been a highly symbolic gesture, considering the climate of hostility that has existed with Constantinople since it recognized the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, an autocephalous church that no longer depended on the Moscow Patriarchate as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church had since the 17th century.
But paradoxically, the factors that made a Jerusalem meeting an attractive option prompted the pope to cancel the encounter — at least for now.
The Holy See did not want the potential meeting to be exploited amid the Russia-Ukraine war and it did not want to be drawn into intra-Orthodox debates.
While the meeting has been postponed, could it ultimately take place in Kazakhstan — another venue that has been mentioned for some time?
Kazakhstan’s government has announced that Pope Francis will visit the country on Sept. 14-15 to participate in the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions. According to a project defined even before the pandemic, Patriarch Kirill was also invited to the gathering.
But the possibility of a meeting in Kazakhstan also had a downside: the Central Asian country’s link with its neighbor Russia. Kazakhstan is the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Another possible location mentioned was Hungary. This hypothesis was based on the desire that Pope Francis expressed to return to the country that he visited for a single day last September.
The suggested venue was Pannonhalma Archabbey, one of Hungary’s oldest historical monuments. This was considered in 1996 as a possible meeting place between Pope John Paul II and the then head of the Russian Orthodox Church Alexy II. The encounter did not, of course, take place.
The idea would have been for Pope Francis’ trip to coincide with a visit to Hungary by Patriarch Kirill, marking the restoration of the Orthodox cathedral in Budapest or the inauguration of the new Russian Orthodox church in Hévíz, western Hungary.
But this hypothesis faded away, to be replaced by the idea of a meeting in Slovakia, a country that the pope called “a message of peace in the heart of Europe” during his September trip.
The proposal of a meeting between Francis and Kirill in the capital Bratislava was advanced by Ján Figeľ, the special envoy of the European Union for religious freedom from 2016 to 2019.
Why Bratislava? Partly because it is the capital of a country that borders Ukraine and is receiving refugees from the war-torn Eastern European country. And also because it is a nation at the center of Europe, the continent that experienced Soviet oppression and knows the need for reconciliation.
“Peoples and the Church,” Ján Figeľ told CNA, “need to share important messages and commitments of loving faith and truth, courage, peace, reconciliation, and brotherhood, now mainly in and for Europe.”
He added that, “conscious of the historical spiritual and political divisions in Europe, and facing the reality of bloody conflict in the east of Europe, we must urgently converge our effort towards true Christian brotherhood and unity on this continent, where Christianity gave roots and orientation to its cultures and identities.”
Slovakia is a bridge between East and West. The opening lines of its constitution refer to the “the spiritual bequest of Cyril and Methodius,” the “Apostles to the Slavs” who are venerated by both Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
John Paul II spoke of a Europe that needed to breathe with two lungs — eastern and western — and for Figeľ, “this grand vision is still possible and achievable.”
“But the war must end,” he said, “and its consequences cannot represent any imperial expansion of Russia, religious or mental triumphalism, but an actual conversion of Eastern European nations to truth, respect for the dignity of all, proper reconciliation, and shared responsibility.”
Therefore, Bratislava is a strong candidate to be a meeting place for the pope and the Moscow patriarch, the first of its kind in Europe.
Figeľ added that the potential meeting could also “gather together other groups of goodwill, organized lay Christians,” faith-based organizations, and civil society organizations.
“For example, the ICLN [International Catholic Legislators Network] and the IAO [Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy] could start their regular biannual joint meetings in the center of Europe,” he suggested.
In this way, Figeľ said, the meeting “may inspire and encourage the missing post-war process of reconciliation and integration in Eastern Europe as we witnessed in Western Europe, starting with France and Germany under Robert Schuman’s plan.”
“Importantly as well, the name of the city [Bratislava] resonates exceptionally with the Holy Father’s repeated calls for human fraternity. Indeed, ‘brati’ and ‘slava’ in the Slovakian language mean ‘Glory to brothers,’ ‘Glory to brotherhood,’ as ‘brat’ means brother and ‘slava’ is glory. This meaning is the same in other Slavic languages. So, the pope and the patriarch can express, confirm, and visualize their brotherhood in Bratislava in the center of the two Christian and European lungs.”
Figeľ noted that the Holy See, led by Pope Pius XII, had been a “very active supporter” of the reconciliation process in Western Europe.
“Many people hope to stop this war soon,” he said. “After transitional justice and punishment of crimes, an updated Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Ukraine must follow and an offer of a new, values- and rules-based supranational cooperation oriented towards peace, justice, and the common good, with the vision of integration of Eastern countries into one community, representing Europe whole and free, in a common European house.”
This proposal is now before Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill, as well as their respective advisers, the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin and Metropolitan Hilarion in Moscow. Naturally, the moment needs caution, and every meeting must be considered carefully. But every possibility must also be explored.
[…]
May God bless Fr. Weinandy.
They hadn’t the courage to fire him. Similar to Pilate washing his hands. What’s disheartening is what it says about the USCCB. They unlike Churchill say, “We will always surrender”. Darkness pervades. Catholics faithful to the Gospel of Christ firmly rooted in the Apostolic Tradition are mocked, disdained, forced to resign, fired like Josef Seifert by other Catholics who have sworn allegiance to the new gospel. Whether these are End Times is unknown. Prayerfully a passing phase soon to be corrected. Yet it certainly is unprecedented. Unlike previous Pontiff’s who erred this distancing from Apostolic Tradition is too sweeping. Can this be permitted by God and why asks Fr Weinandy. As do most of us. Sin and disobedience to Christ’s commandments. Apostasy. As a priest I cannot repudiate the Gospels for something other than what the Apostles handed down to me. At judgment I, all priests [Bishops and Cardinals included] will be asked “Peter, did you feed my Lambs”. My hopeful prayer is, “Yes Lord, I fed them good food. Your words”.
Is Weinandy seriously a Theologian and still acts thinking he can lay conditions on God to prove to him that he should proceed as planned.?? Come off it! The management of the Church and indeed the planet Earth rests solely in evolution and in the hands of humanity protected by oversight of the Spirit of God.
“The management of the Church and indeed the planet Earth rests solely in evolution…”
Do you really want to keep this up? It’s embarrassing.
Signor Olson. We’re all due for a bit of comic relief.
ditto!
I agree with Carl that this comment is truly embarassing.
I hope comment is made about some authors’ use of the word “dissent.” It is VERY misleading and slanderous against Father Weinandy.
Yes, Father Weinandy is courageously opposing dissenters in the highest places. Who among us could ever imagine that we would experience this persecution of the Faith in our lifetime, when it seems like yesterday, that it was honored by all? Who could have believed that the most vigorous persecution would come from the pope and his team of unprincipled (as though they were not Christian) revolutionaries?
Today, those who vowed to preserve and defend our Faith, dishonor it in word and deed, while bowing low before all kinds of false beliefs.
Sometimes the shock and terror are overwhelming. I must remind myself constantly that this has been known from the beginning. Our Lord Jesus Christ says: Fear not!
I should abandon my bad inclination, and I should trust and obey Him.
Given the extraordinarily rapid timeline, with publication of the letter and publication of the USCCB press releases only six hours apart, it appears that the member bishops did not hold a meeting, make sure they had a quorum, and hold a vote. It appears that one or more post-Catholic ordained bureaucrats made this decision, which may go down in history as the “jumping of the shark” by the USCCB.
A pope who will not clarify his own exhortation, either in private or public. This pope who is on the brink of formal heresy while claiming to be “a faithful son of the Church”.
Fr. Martin weighs in????
How long, Lord?
I’m curious, why did he not just let them fire him? This is not a criticism, but what advantage to him if he “resigns” than if he is “fired”? Is there something in the vow of obedience? Although if he were to have been fired, it may well have raised his standing even more? I imagine Father did not fully anticipate the fallout of his letter.
These folks also don’t seem to realize that this infers Francis is proposing new teaching, for what else would require a new/current act of assent, as though Weinandy would have withdrawn his previous assent from the perennial teaching?
I am a lay Catholic. I do not agree with what Father Weinandy did: I disagree with both the content of the letter and the way he made it public. I am only weighing in on this because Father Weinandy emphasized that he received many letters and emails, mostly from lay people, all of them positive. I support Pope Francis and thought the letter read like an attack on him. The USCCB was right to force Weinandy’s resignation (they could have just terminated him; it was very gracious of them to allow him to resign).
Irene,
You present a false notion: that Fr. Weinandy is “anti-Francis” and this was the reason for his letter. This is unfortunately a way people are trying to discount it and if you think about it, this mode is exactly what they are accusing him of. It was quite the opposite if you read his reasons for it. The ultimate point is whether what he states in the letter is true and that even what one might call the more subjective parts are his actual experience as a priest, hearing from what he says is “many” people. Exactly what in his letter is false? Can you say without any doubt that none of what he mentions is happening anywhere? Are you saying he is lying when he speaks of his personal experience? If you can’t rule this out then the foundation of his letter stands.
Oh, yes, very gracious… So Fr. Martin now calls himself “Irene” ?
So where is the “mercy and dialogue” that Pope Francis and bishops keeps talking about? Did I miss something here?
There is “mercy and dialogue” for the LGBTQ people, so-called “catholic” politicians or pro-aborts or atheists but none whatsoever for the catholic theologian who embraces and preaches the Gospel?!!
Remember when St. Paul rebuked Peter (the first pope) in Galatians 2:11-13
In John 16:2 Jesus said “They will expel you from the synagogues; in fact, the hour* is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God.
They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me”.
Rejoice Fr. Weinandy!! You are truly blessed for being found worthy!
Jesus will bless you greatly!
I fully agree, Fr. Weinandy is our hero. I hope he will honor us by becoming a Member of our newly founded John Paul II Academy for Human Life & the Family!
Mercedes Arzú Wilson.
What I would like to know is: did anyone at USCCB get a phone call from the Vatican before “encouraging” Father Weinandy to resign?
Yes. May God bless Fr. Weinandy. He is a good and faithful servant of the Lord.
If Fr. Weinandy had come out in support of Planned Parenthood, he would still be judged employable by the USCCB.
I would love to know, on what date was Father Weinandy ‘s letter published and on what forum?
Thank you for a reply,
Teréz Barna
Fr. Weinandy’s letter appeared on November 1st, and was published by various outlets, including on Sandro Magister’s site, CRUX, and The Catholic Herald. It also appeared here at CWR on the same day, with a note of explanation by Fr. Weinandy.