Vatican City, Aug 25, 2017 / 12:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- After his recent visit to Russia, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said a key message of his overall “positive” trip was the crucial role the country plays in working for peace, which he voiced to President Vladimir Putin.
“I tried above all to say this, this was the message that I wanted to convey: that Russia, because of her geographic position, her history, her culture, her past and her present, has a great role to play in the international community, in the world,” Cardinal Parolin said Aug. 25.
Because of her role, Russia also has “a particular responsibility regarding peace,” he said, adding that “both the country and her leaders have a great responsibility regarding the building of peace and they must really strive to put the higher interests of peace above all other interests.”
Cardinal Parolin spoke to Alessandro Gisotti from the Secretariat for Communications after returning from his Aug. 21-24 visit to Russia, during which he met with leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church and civil authorities.
Having met with the Pope immediately after returning to Rome, Cardinal Parolin said Francis was happy to hear about the “positive result” of the visit to Russia.
Pope Francis, he said, “is very, very attentive to all opportunities for dialogue that there can be, he is very attentive to value all the dialogues we have and he is very happy when making steps in this direction.”
Overall, the cardinal said that for him, “the result of this trip is a very positive result and so my sentiments are, of course, sentiments of gratitude to the Lord for having accompanied me during these day.”
The meetings “were characterized by a climate of cordiality, a climate of listening, a climate of respect. I would define them as meaningful encounters, they were also constructive encounters,” he said.
In addition to sharing how he was moved by the faith and religiosity of the Russian people, both Catholic and Orthodox, Cardinal Parolin said many different issues were addressed, including Ukraine and Syria.
Suggestions for future areas of collaboration between not only the Holy See and Russia, but also the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, were also discussed, such as the release of prisoners in Ukraine, the restitution of Church property confiscated during the communist regime, and collaboration in providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine and the Middle East.
However, Cardinal Parolin stressed that the proposals made “must be verified and possibly implemented after an adequate discernment and study.”
Given the overall positive result of the visit, “I would say that in the end – to use this word – it was a useful trip, it was an interesting trip, it was a constructive trip.”
Below is CNA’s full English translation of the interview:
Q: Eminence, there was understandably great expectation for your visit to Russia. What sentiments do you have coming back to the Vatican?
I think the balance of this trip is a very positive balance and so my sentiments are, of course, sentiments of gratitude to the Lord for having accompanied me during these days. We were able to realize the program that was already fixed, to keep the scheduled encounters, and I have to say that these meetings – at the level of civil authority with President Putin and with the Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov, and then with the leaders of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill and Metropolitan Hilarion – were characterized by a climate of cordiality, a climate of listening, a climate of respect. I would define them as meaningful encounters, they were also constructive encounters. I feel that I have to put a bit of emphasis on this word: “constructive encounters.” Of course, then, there was also the part of the encounter with the Catholic community. Above all thanks to the conversation and dialogue we had with the bishops in the nunciature, it was possible to know from a bit closer the reality, the life, of the Catholic community in Russia, her joys, her hopes, but also her challenges and the difficulties she has to face. For the latter, in part, it was possible to represent them, to expose them to the authorities. I cite one for all: the theme of the restitution of some churches that were confiscated during the time of the communist regime and for which there still has not been any restitution in the face of the need of the Catholic community to have adequate places of worship. So, I would say that in the end – to use this word – it was a useful trip, it was an interesting trip, it was a constructive trip.
Q: Have you already had the chance to speak with the Holy Father about the trip? What can you share about what you said?
Yes, naturally as soon as I returned I went to the Holy Father to give him a short, brief, concise account of both the contents and the results of the trip and naturally I conveyed the greetings that were given on the part of all parties I met, from the affection and closeness of the Catholic community, to the respectful greetings of the authorities. I remember that President Putin – I think it was also recorded in the public part of the meeting – underlined the living memory he keeps of his meetings with Pope Francis in 2013 and 2015. And then also the fraternal greeting of Patriarch Kirill. Of course the Pope was pleased with these impressions, of these positive results which I communicated; the Pope, as we know – he repeated also in this circumstance – is very, very attentive to all opportunities for dialogue that there can be, he is very attentive to value all the dialogues we have and he is very happy when making steps in this direction.
Q: What were the principle themes discussed in the meeting with Patriarch Kirill?
I would say that fundamentally we considered this new climate, this new atmosphere which reings in the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church; this new climate, this new atmosphere which has been established in recent years and which, naturally, has had a particularly significant moment and strong acceleration thanks to the meeting in Havana between the Patriarch and the Pope, which this event followed. Truly, I noted from the part of both Orthodox interlocutors how they were moved by the experience of the visit of the relics of St. Nicholas of Bari to Moscow and St. Petersburg, but in the sense that they were touched by the faith and religiosity of the people. It was highlighted that as many Russians who belong to the Orthodox tradition but don’t practice, drew close to the Church on this occasion. It was truly a great event both in terms of size – there were two and a half million faithful who visited the relics – and in terms of the impact of faith and spirituality that this event produced. We then went through some of the steps that have been taken and those that will be, which ought to be the steps taken in the future. To me it seems that on their part, as naturally also on our part, they do not want to exhaust the potential that this new phase has opened, and naturally the collaboration can take place in various areas, at various levels: from cultural collaboration – academic – to humanitarian…this point was heavily stressed, that in front of the situations of conflict that exist in the world, the two Churches can really carry out an incisive and effective humanitarian work. Also touched on – with respect and at the same time frankness – themes that are a bit prickly in relations between the two Churches; however, we tried to give – at least in my opinion, what I took away – a rather positive sense, that is, to explore shared ways to tackle and to try to solve these problems. And of course even these shared paths, these concrete proposals that emerged must be verified and possibly implemented after an adequate discernment and study.
Q: Now, Eminence, regarding more sensitive themes: the question of Ukraine is one of the most delicate in relations between the Holy See and Russia. You visited Ukraine a year ago. Is there some news after your visit?
New, until now, there is none…perhaps it’s premature to think about something new. The Lord – we hope – will make it sprout and bear fruit, if there were those seeds of good that we tried to plant. However, as noted, the question of Ukraine is one of the issues of greatest concern for the Holy See: the Pope has spoken many times about this topic…It’s obvious that this could not be treated, this theme; it could not be forgotten in that circumstance. I would say that above all in the sense of trying to see, to evaluate, whether there were any concrete steps that could be made toward a lasting and just solution to the conflict, which are virtually the agreements reached between the two parties. And it is well known that the Holy See has first of all insisted on the humanitarian aspects starting with the Pope’s great initiative in Ukraine (last year’s collection). In this sense, for example, one of the themes is that of the freeing of prisoners: this is one of the “humanitarian” topics that could really be important in giving some impetus to the entire process, even politically, to get out of this stasis and and to advance – for example – the topic of the truce, the ceasefire, the topic of security conditions in the area, the topic, also, of the political conditions in order to make progress in the global solution. So we hope that something can help to walk in the right direction, taking into account – when we talk of solutions, of humanitarian issues – that we are speaking about people and speaking about suffering. And I think that this is what everyone must have in mind precisely to try to make an extra effort to go in the right direction.
Q: The media naturally gave a lot of attention to the encounter in Sochi with Vladimir Putin. How did the meeting with the Russian president go?
I would say that the meeting with President Putin enters a bit into the evaluation that I have at the beginning: it was a cordial meeting, it was a respectful meeting in which we were able to address the issues that at least we had in our hearts to discuss, such as, for example, the Middle East, the situation of Syria in particular, and in this context also the issue of the presence of Christians: we know that one of the coincidences that there are between Russia and the Holy See is precisely this attention to the situation of Christians, the theme of Christian persecution, which we tend to widen to all religious groups – naturally – and to all minorities, trying to involve even Muslims, as was done for example in that seminar that took place in Geneva last year. Then, on the topic of Ukraine, we have already spoken a bit; the theme of Venezuela: I saw that some media also reported some statements that were made in this sense. So, other than bilateral themes, which I mentioned at the beginning, we presented some situations of difficulty for the Catholic community. I tried above all to say this, this was the message that I wanted to convey: that Russia, because of her geographic position, her history, her culture, her past and her present, has a great role to play in the international community, in the world. A great role to play. And so it has a particular responsibility regarding peace: both the country and her leaders have a great responsibility regarding the building of peace and they must really strive to put the higher interests of peace above all other interests.
Q: Finally, Eminence, other than the most significant encounters, is there another moment or specific aspect you want to highlight?
Yes, there was the beautiful moment of Mass together with the Catholic community. The cathedral was crowded with people and it was a bit of a surprise, because it was a holiday, so that many people weren’t expected. Then, of course, the faith and devotion of this people always moves me: how the participate in Mass, with such attention, with such reverence, with such silence, they are present there. And I think that they came more than anything to express their attachment to the Pope and the fact of being members of the universal Church. So that was a nice moment. Another beautiful moment was the brief visit to the Sisters of Mother Teresa who work in Moscow. We were able to meet and greet the people they assist, even there it was shown a great affection toward the Pope. And then, the last thing that I want to recall: I was very impressed by the visit we made one evening to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the Orthodox cathedral of Moscow; the cathedral that was blown up during the communist regime. So it was also a moment to remember this painful history in the age in which they wanted to completely eradicate the faith from the hearts of believers and eliminate every dream of the presence of God and the Church in that land. Something they weren’t able to do, because God is greater than the projects of men.
[…]
And Jesus entrusted you as His representative on Earth; not as the never-ending Devil’s advocate.
SHE IS COREDEMPTRIX!
Deus vult!
Annunciation of Christ’s entry into our world required Mary’s assent. Mary’s assent, her consequent participation in Christ’s Passion, her recognition as Theotokos at Ephesus 431 entitles her as Co-redeemer [Co-redemptress] . Although Pope Francis is not disrespectful to Our Blessed Mother by denying her the title co-redeemer. That is, co-redeemer understood as equal to Christ, the unique redeemer of Man. Where The Pontiff is incomplete in his assessment is the legitimate manner in which claim to that title is valid. For example, when asked in 2000 whether the Church would agree to solemnly define Mary as Co-redemptrix, Cardinal Ratzinger responded that the formula Co-redemptrix departs too far from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings. Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, tell us. Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word Co-redemptrix would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. That correct intention is de congruo. Theologians distinguish between remote cooperation by which Mary consents to the Incarnation and gives birth to the Son of God, and immediate cooperation, in which she willingly unites herself to her Son’s Passion and offers him back to the Father. Philosophers also draw a distinction between merit de condigno [Christ’s merit], which is based on justice, and merit proprie de congruo [Mary’s merit], founded on the friendship of charity. In his encyclical on the Immaculate Conception, Ad diem illum, Pope Pius X said, “Since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno”. We can be assured of her Son’s love for his Mother, and the unique role given her for our redemption.
A recent quote by Pope Francis
“We are not orphans; we have a Mother in Heaven.” Sure, of this, we can never fall into the sin of despair, a sin which has a powerful pull today.
Which could be described as a direct attack (Undermining) of this given teaching by Jesus Christ.
“I will not leave you behind as orphans, I will come to you” as “the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid”
Many Catholic theologians have rightly pointed out in recent decades that Mary often takes the place of the Holy Spirit, for example as “Advocate” and “Comforter”
While we can reflect on these Words “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, (Holy Spirit) living in me, who is doing his work”
So, if we trust in His teachings our promise is that the Holy Spirit (God Himself) will dwell within us also. This is true for/of all His Saints including His exulted Mother. As His earthly creatures, we are always the container never the contents. Yes, we are taught that we can pray (request) that the saints intercede on our behalf but ultimately that intercession must glorify God alone and we do this when we ‘trust’ in Him alone
“If you love me, obey my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you. He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The world cannot receive him, because it isn’t looking for him and doesn’t recognize him. But you know him because he lives with you now and later will be in you. No, I will not abandon you as orphans—I will come to you. Soon the world will no longer see me, but you will see me. Since I live, you also will live”
kevin your brother
In Christ
See Marian Questions about Catholic Answers, Amsterdam, Coredemption.
The Band of Mary’s Men, Fr. Elias Mills, F.I., Dr. Robert Fastiggi, and Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins rebuts much of the content of Tim Staples’ interview on Catholic Answers, January 18, 2021, on the subject of the Vatican’s recent decree regarding the alleged apparitions of The Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam and the related doctrine of Mary as Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces.
https://gloria.tv/post/R2s1oEb2zFiM2C7egwVV6RKLo
One of the BVM’s titles always serves to carry into the mysteries of the Mother of God and our Mother. It is Mirror of Justice. In a certain sense also Mirror of Justice already gives away the fact that she is Redemptrix.
And in one perspective Redemptrix could be the “least awesome” title especially coming after so many centuries, after Theotokos the “most awesome” and after the Litany; and after LUMEN GENTIUM where Paul VI couldn’t stop adding titles.
Yesterday would have been St. Gabriel’s day, the Angel of the Annunciation; and we entered today with how we may have disappointed it and with an overarching concern for our brothers in faith.
The situation appears to be of some moment and something more than logic is needed; we need grace. Hopefully it is a sign that our brothers are searching and their hearts want truth in fullness.
May they not be carried away by error or stubbornness and may they be saved from their sins, failings and weaknesses.
I resolve to pray and sacrifice for the Holy Father for his own needs and for the needs of the theologians who move him and move with him; and whatever other company is involved.
May we be supported in the intercession of so many faithful through the ages, in their own uplifted devotion to the BVM, who are now together in heaven with her.
Jimmy Akin’s discussion at CATHOLIC ANSWERS reveals a lot: “Does the Church teach Mary is Co-Redemptrix?” May 1 2021. That is, assuming we can rely on the information basics.
The information has two parts. It would be counter-productive to delve into this Marian title as it is beyond most people’s understanding. Since it is a title that “compresses too much into one phrase” it is better left gone into disuse. He seems to suggest that Benedict XVI is the person that gave the matter this perspective and orientation, which is traced into VATICAN II and Paul VI.
What this shows (to me at least) is a lack of understanding of the title and a lack of appreciation of the BVM. The title “Redemptrix” has specific points to do with Mary and they are not “compressed complexities”. Moreover, it would be to the advantage of everyone in and out of the Church to have the title fleshed out and established firmly.
All of Mary’s qualities “magnify” something of God’s Glory. It is unacceptable that the Church should be delayed sharing them or worse stand by idly when they are being repressed.
I say, this title of Mary’s, Redemptrix, will overthrow all the enemies of VATICAN II.
https://www.catholic.com/video/does-the-church-teach-mary-is-co-redemptrix
The Pontiff would be well served by enrolling in, attending and passing a rudimentary class in Latin. The prefix co is derived from the Latin word cum which means with not equal to. The word Co-redemptrix literally means the woman with the Redeemer not the woman equal to the Redeemer.
This latest rant provides further affirmation that Kolvenbach was spot on when he wrote that Bergoglio was unfit to be ordained a Bishop.