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.
[…]
Thus wrote Mahatma Gandhi: “The human voice can never reach the distance that is covered by the still small voice of conscience”.
Conscience means to act with knowledge. Cardinal Marx addresses the tension between reason and doctrine favoring doctrine with exceptions such as homosexuality. If reason is the rule of truth then revealed truth is not. “What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe ‘because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived’” (CCC 156). Man has the inherent capacity to identify truth that is the basis for forming conscience and responsibility for his actions. That is why Aquinas acknowledged that reason is the measure of truth not the rule.
I have ALWAYS believed that people making rules and judgemments must be a participant in the society in which they govern. Cardinals and Bishops and priests when they are MARRIED seem to have a better understanding and ability to govern on this subject! It is ludicrous to allow this. Much like a married couple should explain Marriage to Teens not a priest. Gosh this is quite a step in the wrong direction!
I suppose in your vision of Church governance Jesus need not apply.
According to CNA German and the German language portal kath.net, what Cardinal Marx has said smacks more of situation ethics than what appears in this current article. Following kath.net (‘Conscience decision of homosexuals must be respected’) the Cardinal warned against ‘blind rigorism’ in sexual morals. ‘Of course there must be a responsibility with regard to the gospel and the teaching of the Church, but (finally) the conscience decision made in freedom must be respected.’ Depending on CNA German the Cardinal stated that ‘questions of sexual morals are decided by your personal – though formed by Christian principles – conscience.’ And again ‘there must be respect for one’s decision made in freedom.’ The Kardinals assertions go well together with the ‘Königsteiner Erklärung’ in which the German bishops after ‘Humanae vitae’ put the decision of the ‘personal conscience’ above the norm of the encyclical regarding contraception. One is reminded of the guidelines of the Maltese bishops on ‘Amoris laetitia’ saying that a divorced and remarried person should be admitted to Communion if, “with an informed and enlightened conscience”, they believe they are “at peace with God”. These guidelines were reportedly acknowledged with gratitude by Pope Francis (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-thanks-maltese-bishops-for-amoris-laetitia-guidelines).
The post pedophilia era, if there is a post, places the church in a somewhat deleterious fall out. Promises made by Pope Francis to “clean house” of criminal hierarchy began with a tribunal that was short lived. Compounding that false start was a rare display of acknowledgement to two Cardinals that were criminally responsible for moving criminal priests in Boston and Los Angeles. How does a faithful lay person remain so in light of these atrocities against innocent young people? Then we hear all about how our conscience should be involved in sexual matters from clergy who are supposedly a-sexual.
When it comes to restricting the ordination of women, we are living in a netherworld of old manmade tales. Women would make better, less complicated priests. The church may not have spent $1.5 billion to lawyers and the injured children in retribution had there been female clergy.
One day as he was driven up Riverside Drive William Sloan Coffin was asked what he, a Protestant minister, though of the current Catholic Church? He quipped… “they are still trying to steer the car based on what they see in the rearview mirror”. That is a saying any Catholic should remember.
“The church may not have spent $1.5 billion to lawyers and the injured children in retribution had there been female clergy.” The recent (and ongoing) spate of stories about female teachers engaged in sexual relations with teenage boys would indicate otherwise. But perhaps I underestimate the moral propriety of the fairer sex.
You need to stop perpetuating the “pedophilia” myth. The overwhelming majority of abuse cases in the Church involved homosexual ephebophiles – aka chickenhawks; intrinsically disordered sexual deviants masquerading as Catholic Priests.
As for the proposal to ordain women is concerned, we’ve all seen what a disaster that has been for the Anglican denomination. You think you’ve got problems now just proceed on that tangent.
No, the solution is to enforce the longstanding ban on the ordination of homosexuals; reaffirmed in February of 1961 during the Pontificate of Pope St. John XXIII. Furthermore, rid the seminaries, Diaconate, Priesthood, Episcopacy, Curia, College of Cardinals and consecrated religious life of homosexuals and return to a culture where virtues of discipline, obedience, humility and chastity are no longer paid lip service. That is the solution.
Exactly right could not agree w you more. Perfectly said. And to this I would add…religious should wear thier religious clothing Priest and Nuns…
You need a mystical understanding of the Mystical Body of Christ in order to understand the male priesthood. The relationship between Christ and His Church is said to be spousal. Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride. When a husband and a wife enter into the one flesh union it is the man who enters into the woman. Likewise, in conception it is the male sperm that swims up to and enters into the female egg. It seems clear that the act of entering within is a male act. The male is the doer of intimacy. The female is the one who receives this intimacy. This explains why Christ came as a male, and why male terms like Father and Son are used to describe God, and why the Church is called Holy Mother Church.
*
Because of the Hypostatic Union, Christ is One Person in two natures, divine and human. The priest acts In Persona Christi, in the person of Christ. In Holy Orders during the ordination the priest is configured to Christ in a very special way. As such, Holy Orders is in the image and likeness of the Hypostatic Union. The priest is the living icon of Christ. Consecrated women religious are considered to be brides of Christ.
*
The priest acts In Persona Christi during the Consecration. In the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist during the Consecration the Real Presence of Christ enters into and becomes one with the bread and the wine. Transubstantiation at its core is a male act. The Body and Blood in a similar fashion enter into the communicant. The Holy Eucharist is a sacrament that is permeated with Christ’s maleness, and gives us a foreshadowing of the final nuptial union that is described in Revelation.
*
Women don’t have to be priests to have an impact on the Church. We can begin with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the women disciples. There are many important women saints: St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, St Thérèse of Lisieux, and St. Faustina for starters.
*
Any woman who thinks that she has a calling from the Holy Spirit needs to study the works of St. Teresa of Avila, who is a Doctor of the Church. She wrote extensively about prayer and mysticism. St. Teresa was also a reformer who sought to restore a spiritual focus to the Carmelite Order that had fallen into lax spiritual practices. St. John of the Cross joined her in this reform effort. They both met with considerable opposition to their reform efforts. St. John was taken prisoner, jailed, and flogged.
*
The arguments that are being made in an attempt to redefine the priesthood are very similar to the arguments being used in an attempt to redefine marriage.
“On the question of ordaining women to the priesthood, which the German interviewers also raised, the Cardinal gave a short, definitive answer: ‘That really is not for discussion. The pope has spoken decisively on the matter.'”…With all the talk we hear about the importance of dialogue and informed conscience, does it bother anyone else that this is the Cardinal’s quick response to a question burning on the minds of many Catholics, not at all aware or convinced this cannot be changed in the name of, “guidance of the Holy Spirit”? Does it reveal that he does not agree? Is he suggesting he yields in fidelity to the Church’s teaching? #JustAsking