Vatican City, Jun 21, 2018 / 04:29 pm (CNA).- In a June 21 conversation with journalists on the way back from a trip to Geneva, Pope Francis touched on an array of topics, including ecumenism, intercommunion, peace and just war, and refugees.
Please read below for CNA’s full transcript of the Pope’s inflight press conference:
Greg Burke:
Thank you, Your Holiness… we wait a second, here we go… perfect! Thank you in the meantime. To journey, to pray, to work together… we have walked, we have prayed also, at various times, and now we touch on work a little, even to eat after, so that it is seen that to journey together brings fruit.
Today the welcoming- we have seen, after many speeches that it is the mutual respect and it is something more, it is also friendship. However, there is still so much work to do and so many challenges and this interests us normally, the challenges… so, to you journalists… but, if you want to say something first [Holy Father]?
Pope Francis:
Thank you for your work, the day was a little heavy, at least for me… but I am content, I am content [ed. note: or ‘happy’] because the various things that we have done — that is, the prayers to begin, then the speech during lunch it was the most beautiful, then the academic meeting, and then the Mass, they are things that have made me happy… The tiring but beautiful things! Thank you so much! Now I am available to you.
Greg Burke:
Good. We begin with the Swiss. (Arnaud Bedat of L’Illustre magazine)
Bedat:
Holy Father, you have been in Geneva, but also in Switzerland. What are the images and what are the strong, important moments that had an impact on you during this day?
Pope Francis:
Repeat for me.
Bedat:
(repeated)
Pope Francis:
I believe that it is a common word: encounter. It was a day of varied encounters. The right word of the day is ‘encounter,’ and when a person encounters another and feels appreciation for the meeting, this always touches the heart, no? They were positive meetings, good even, beginning with the dialogue with the president at the beginning; it was not a speech of courtesy, as usual… [it was] a deep speech on the profound world debates and [spoken by him] with an intelligence… that I remain astonished, beginning from that.
Then the meetings that you all saw, and that which you did not see is the meeting at lunch, that was very profound [or deep] in the way it touched on many debates, mabe the debate we spent the most time on is “the youth.” Because even all of the churches are concerned, in the good sense, for the youth and the pre-synod that occurred in Rome from March 19 and then attracted enough attention, because there were youth of all [different] beliefs, even agnostics and of all the countries. Think, 315 youth there and 15,000 connected [ed note: via Facebook] that they entered and exited and this perhaps awakened a special interest.
But the word that came to me maybe the whole trip is that it was a voyage of ‘encounter.’ Maybe… I don’t know… an experience of encounter… no rudeness, nothing entirely formal. A human encounter. And this… between Protestants, Catholics and all [people] it says a lot, eh!
Greg Burke:
Thanks, Holiness. Now the German group. Roland Juchem of the German Catholic CIC Agency is here.
Roland Juchem:
Thanks, Holy Father. You speak often of concrete steps toward ecumenism. Today, for example, you again referred to that, saying “Let’s see what is possible to do concretely rather than getting discouraged for what isn’t.”
The German bishops recently have decided to take a step and so we ask ourselves why Archbishop Ladaria wrote a letter that seems like an “emergency brake.” After the meeting May 3, it was affirmed that the German bishops would have had to find a possibly unanimous solution. What will be the next steps? Will an intervention from the Vatican be necessary to clarify or will the German bishops have to find an agreement?
Pope Francis:
Well. This is not a novelty because in the Code of Canon Law, what the German bishops were talking about is foreseen: communion in special cases. And, they were looking at the problem of mixed marriages, no? If it is possible or it isn’t possible. And the Code says that the bishop of the particular Church – this word is important, “particular,” if it is of a diocese – must read that. It’s in his hands. This is in the Code. The German bishops, because they had seen that it wasn’t clear… also some priests did things who weren’t in agreement with the bishop, have wished to study this theme and have made this study that I don’t want to exaggerate, but it was a study of more than a year, and more… it’s more than a year… well done… and the study was restrictive.
What the bishops wanted is to say clearly what is in the Code. And, I read it and said: this is a restrictive document, no? It wasn’t open to everyone. It’s a well thought-out thing, with ecclesial spirit. And they wished to do it for the local Church, not the particular. The thing slid along up until there for the German [bishops’] conference. And there, there is a problem, because the Code does not foresee that. It foresees the bishop of the diocese, but not the conference, because a thing approved by an episcopal conference immediately becomes universal.
And this was the difficulty of the discussion: not so much the content, but this. And they sent the document. Then, there were two or three meetings of dialogue or of clarification and Archbishop Ladaria sent that letter, but with my permission. He didn’t do it alone! I told him: ‘Yes, it’s better to make a step ahead and say that the document isn’t yet mature and that the thing needed to be studied more.’ Then, there was another meeting and at the end they will study the thing.
I think that this will be an orientative document so that each of the diocesan bishops can manage what canon law already permits.
It wasn’t a brake … it is reading the thing so that it goes along the right path. When I made a visit to the Lutheran Church of Rome, a question of the kind was posed, and I replied according to the spirit of the Code of Canon Law. It is the spirit that they are seeking now. Maybe it wasn’t the right information in the right moment, a little bit of confusion, but this is the thing: the particular Church, the Code permits it, the local Church [episcopal conference] cannot because it would be universal.
(journalist inaudible)
But the conference can study and give orientative opinions to help the bishops to manage the particular cases. Thanks.
Greg Burke:
Now from the Spanish group there is Eva Fernandez of COPE agency and Spanish radio
Pope Francis:
They are good, these [journalists] of COPE
Eva Fernandez:
Thank you, Holy Father! We have seen that even the secretary general of the Ecumenical Council of Churches spoke of help to refugees. Just recently we have seen the incident of the Aquarius ship, also the separation of families in the United States. Do you think that some leaders instrumentalize/use the tragedy of refugees. Do they use them…?
Pope Francis:
I have spoken a lot on refugees, the criteria are those that I have said: to welcome, to accompany, to place, to integrate. This is the criteria for all refugees. Then I have said that every country should do this with the virtue of the rule of prudence, because a country should welcome as many refugees as it can and as many as it can integrate, educate, assimilate, give work to. This I would say is the straightforward/easy, serene plan for refugees. Here we are living [with] a wave of refugees that flee from wars and from hunger. The war and hunger of many countries in Africa, wars and persecution in the Middle East. Italy and Greece were very generous in welcoming [refugees], and for the Middle East, Turkey [was also], in respect to Syria, it has received many… Lebanon many… Lebanon has as many Syrians as Lebanese… and then Jordan… other countries, also Spain has received [them? some?].
There is a problem of trafficking migrants, and also there is the problem when in some cases they return, because they should return if this — I do not know/understand well the terms in agreement — if they are in the Libyan water, they should return… and there, I have seen the photographs of the detention centers controlled by the traffickers. Traffickers immediately separate the women from the men… women and babies go… God knows where! This is what the traffickers do! There is even a case that I know of where the traffickers were close to a ship that had accepted barges and… [they were saying] “give us the women and the babies and take the males.”
These traffickers and the detention centers of the traffickers eh, that have returned, they are terrible… terrible! In the detention camps of the Second World War they saw these things! And also the mutilizations in the torture of [forced?] labor and then they threw them to be in the comunes of the men. For this the leaders are concerned that they [the people] do not return and fall into the hands of these people [the traffickers]. It is a world-wide concern! I know that the leaders speak on this and they want to find an agreement, even to modify the Dublin agreement and all of this.
In Spain you have had the case of this ship that is docked in Valencia, but all of this is a mess… the problem of the wars is difficult to resolve. The problem of the persecution also of Christians in the Middle East, also in Nigeria… but the problem of hunger they can resolve, and many European leaders are thinking of an emergency plan to invest in these countries, to invest intelligently, to give work and education in these two things in the countries from which those people come… because — [I’ll say] one thing, not to offend, but it is the truth — in the collective subconscious, is a bad motto: Africa is exploited. And Africa is to be preyed on… this is in the subconscious… ‘eh, they are Africans.’ Always ‘land of slaves.’
And this should change with this plan of investment, and to increase education, because the African people have many cultural riches, many, and they have a great intelligence. The children are very intelligent and they, with a good education, can go beyond… this will be the road halfway to the goal, but in the moment leaders should make an agreement between themselves to go forward with these emergency fixes… this here in Europe! We go in America: in America there is a great migration problem.
(journalist inaudible)
In Latin America too there is an internal migration problem… in my homeland there is a migration problem from North to South and even these people leave the countryside because there is no work and the go to the big cities and where there are these megacities [or huge cities], the slums and all these things, but it is also an external migration to other countries that have work… and speaking concretely of the United States, I back that which the bishops of the country say. I side with them. Thank you.
Greg Burke:
Thanks, Holiness. Now is the English group: Deborah Castellano Lubov of the Zenit Agency.
Deborah Castellano Lubov (Zenit):
Thanks, Holiness! Holiness, in your address today to the ecumenical encounter you made reference to the enormous strength of the Gospel. We know some of the Churches, now the World Council of Churches, the so-called “pacifist Churches” who believe that a Christian cannot use violence. We remember that two years ago in the Vatican there was as conference organized. Do you think that it would be the case for the Catholic Church to unite to these so-called “Churches of peace” and set aside the doctrine of just war? Thanks.
Pope Francis:
A clarification, why do you say that there are “pacifist Churches?”
Deborah Castellano Lubov:
They are considered as pacifist because they have this way of reasoning that if a person (intuits) a violence, at that point they can no longer be considered Christians.
Pope Francis:
Thanks. I understand. Because you put your finger right in the wound, eh? I think that… today at lunch a pastor said that maybe the first human right is the right to hope and I liked that. And this has to do a bit with this and we spoke about the crisis of human rights today. I think that I have to begin from this to arrive to your question. The crisis of human rights is clearly seen. They speak a bit about human rights but so many groups or some countries take a distance, and “yes, human rights,” but there isn’t the strength, the enthusiasm, the conviction. I don’t say 70 years ago but 20 years ago. And this is grave because we have to see the causes, but what are the causes for which we have arrived to this that today human rights are relative. Also the right to peace is relative. It is a crisis of human rights. This I think that we must think it through to the end, or with certainty.
Then, Churches of peace. I think that all the Churches that have this spirit of peace must reunite and work together as we said in the speeches today, myself and the other people that spoke. And at lunch, unity for peace was spoken of. Peace is an exigency because there is risk of a war that we … some have said this: this third world war, if it is done, we know with which arms it will be done… but if there were a fourth, it would be done with sticks because humanity will be destroyed. The commitment for peace is serious, but when you think of the money that is spent on weapons… for this, the religions of peace… is the mandate of God. Peace, fraternity, human unity. All of the conflicts, don’t resolve them like Cain, resolve them with negotiations, with dialogue, with mediations… for example, we’re in a crisis of mediations. The mediation as a juridical figure (very rich) today is in pure crisis. Hope is in crisis, crisis of human rights, crisis of mediations, crisis of peace.
But then if you say that there are religions of peace, I ask myself, where are the religions of war? It’s tough to understand this. It’s tough. But, some groups, I would say in almost all of the small religious groups, I will say a bit simply fundamentalists, seek wars… Also we Catholics have some. They always seek destruction, no? And this is very important to have our eyes on it. I don’t know if I replied. Thanks.
They say that the population is asking for lunch, eh, dinner, that there is just enough time to arrive with a full stomach. It’s just to tell you… a word that I want to say clearly that today was an ecumenical day, really ecumenical! And at lunch we said a beautiful word, a beautiful thing, that I leave with you so that you think on it and reflect, you make a nice consideration of this. In the ecumenical movement we have to take from the dictionary a word: “proselytism.” Clear? You cannot have ecumenism with proselytism. You have to choose. Either you have an ecumenical spirit or you are a proselytizer.
Thanks! I would continue speaking because I like it… but now let’s make the Substitute [of the Secretariat of State] come because it is the last trip he’ll make with us, because now he’s going to change color, but not for embarrassment! We want to say goodbye to him. It’s a Sardinian cake to celebrate!
Cardinal-elect Angelo Becciu (Sardinian-born Substitute of the Holy See Secretariat of State):
Thanks! It is a double surprise of calling me and thanking me in front of you! And then there’s a Sardinian cake. Well, then, we’ll try it with pleasure! I truly thank the Holy Father for this occasion, but for everything, because he has allowed me this magnificent experience of traveling so much with him. At the beginning, he scared me saying, ‘No, I’ve made few trips.’ Do you remember? And then after one, he added another and then another and we said to ourselves, ‘good thing he said there would be few and they’ve been many.’ A magnificent experience of seeing the Holy Father spread the Word of God courageously. My service has been only this: to help him in this. Alright? Thanks to all of you and to those who have helped us! Thanks.
Pope Francis:
Buon appetito, have a good dinner and thanks so much! And pray for me, please. Thanks.
[…]
As long as we remain apart from communion as a body fully united in doctrine and practice, we belie the unitive element of the Eucharist, if we simply engage in intercommunion for sake of a conceptual unity understood as friendship we divest the reality of unity realized in specificity, that which distinguishes one baptism, one faith, one Church.
Insofar as the Orthodox with whom we are so close in belief and practice, the theological solution of one faith cannot be the mitigation of key doctrine, in specific, that centers on one specific belief, the identity of the Person of Christ who shares full and complete divinity with the other two persons of the Holy Trinity. That contentious doctrine is the Filioque clause, which clearly and unambiguously defines the co-equality of the three Persons. To remain in denial of that doctrine is to diminish the divinity of the Person Jesus of Nazareth.
Fr, all three Persons in the Trinity are one in substance and undivided. You are correct in stating that the Orthodox churches reject the Filioque.
However, many Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome, such as Ruthenian Byzantines, omit the Filioque clause when they recite the Creed. Byzantine Catholics most certainly do not diminish the divinity of the Person Jesus of Nazareth. Rather, they emphasize His divinity by focusing on the Resurrection.
Here’s a good article I found. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://east2west.org/sp_faq/filioque/&ved=2ahUKEwiluvyC84aKAxWwIjQIHX1qDbYQFnoECDMQAQ&sqi=2&usg=AOvVaw2j4MQaCEWh7lt4Eh1OHKlK
Right. In addition, the Orthodox separate themselves from Roman Catholicism by taking different positions on issues other than the Filioque…1) Peter’s Primacy, 2) Priestly celibacy, and more.
Yes. Thanks for your response. Eastern Rite Catholics remain united with the Church on the basis that they do not repudiate the long held doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. Unfortunately, the Orthodox do not simply refuse to state explicitly that Christ imparts the Holy Spirit. They effectively deny it.
For a background of that explicitly stated doctrine within Catholicism I list the following: Tertullian 216 AD against Praxeas. Origen 229. Maximus the Confessor 254. Gregory Thaumaturgus [the wonder worker] 265. Hillary of Poitiers 357. Basil the Great 375. Ambrose of Milan 371. Gregory of Nyssa 382. The Athanasian Creed 400. Augustine 408. Cyril of Alexandria 424. Gregory the Great 447. Toledo 447. At Toledo Spain’s hierarchy contested Arians who denied the procession of the Holy Spirit from Christ. There should be no objection whatsoever to the attachment of the Clause to the Nicaean Credo.
Correction: Pope Gregory the Great affirmed the filioque in his Dialogues dated 593.
Yes, as an Eastern Orthodox I also find it quite amazing (and sad) when Roman Catholics attack Orthodox theology/ tradition like the Filioque issue, married priests etc. while having their own Byzantine CATHOLICS who do just what we do.
I am quite sure it would be very enriching, for the Roman Catholics, to learn more about their Byzantine brethren.
Anna, the issue with the Orthodox is not that the Latin Church seeks to impose the Filioque Clause. Rather it’s that certain Orthodox refuse to accept Rome’s decision to include the clause. Even if it relates solely to the Latin Church. This was addressed by John Paul II:
“In 1995 the Holy Father asked the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to reconsider the issue. At his request, they issued a marvelous document entitled: ‘The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity – the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions’. This document acknowledged the Eastern understanding of the Father as the source of the Trinity as being definitive for the Catholic Church. The Orthodox were concerned that Catholics claimed that the Father and Son BOTH were the source of the Trinity. This document puts that fear to rest” (Dr Anthony Dragani).
While a monarchical understanding of the Father is acceptable, we cannot presume the Person of Jesus of Nazareth is not co-equal with the Father.
I read somewhere that Romans interpret it as the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, whereas Byzantines look at it as the Holy Spirit proceeding FROM the Father THROUGH the Holy Spirit. I do NOT know if that is actual, official Eastern Catholic doctrine/teaching though. Nevertheless, the Filioque clause issue is not the main source of division between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, both East and West. It’l seems to be the Immaculate Conception and the Papacy.
I meant to say Holy Spirit proceeding FROM the Father THROUGH the Son, not thru the Holy Spirit. My error. Like I said, I don’t know if it’s official Eastern Catholic Churches doctrine or not.
Ultimately Anna in respect to the Trinity there is only one God, be he the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Fr Peter,
You are saying nothing new to me.
PS After worshiping with Roman Catholics for ten years I recognize the old myself in you (by “you” I mean not just you but many Roman Catholics). Years ago, I was sure that Roman Catholics are somewhat heretical/incorrect. After years within the Roman Catholic Church (but remaining an Orthodox) I can see how presumptuous I was. Even if I still do not think some things are not necessary/disagreeable, I can see their logic. My point is that many Roman Catholics are full of false ideas about Orthodoxy just as most Eastern Orthodox – about Catholics. Not all ideas are entirely false but they somehow are perceived differently when one is inside. You cannot understand what our (Orthodox) thoughts are unless you worship with us for some time.
I think I expressed this thought before, of a necessity to understand the other via participating in the Liturgy/Mass of the other tradition. When one is worshiping God, he cannot exercise his pride and think “oh, it is all wrong”. Thus, he perceives the other tradition from a lower point and it enables him to understand better. It is only when one begins loving the other tradition he begins perceiving its truth.
Thoughtful and kind Anna.
Nicaea is perceived as the definitive profession of the faith. Christ’s divine identity is defined in the words, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. That definition was broken when it was declared in the East that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father, not from the Son. And the reason why it was absolutely required to restore its meaning.
Although John’s Gospel confirms Everything that the Father has, has been given over to the Son, and everything that the Son has, is possessed by the Father. Repudiate that and we repudiate that the Son reveals the Father in his fullness, that we might seek elsewhere to find the fullness of who the Father is. Thus, we experience today in the Synod the search, listening for a new revelation from the Holy Spirit. That is the compounding error.
Nicaea (325 A.D.), Constantinople (381 A.D.), and then Chaldcedon (451 A.D.) were about the nature of the Triune One and the fully divine and human nature, both, in the Person of Jesus Christ. After one and a half millennia, the stress test today is about the nature of Man–and winking at the Secularist zeitgeist. Whereupon, and about a joint celebration, the Orthodox Churches are already incensed by Fiducia Supplicans.
From an Anglo Catholic convert: “Between the idea and the reality, between the motion and the act, falls the shadow” (T.S. Eliot).
True regarding the successive Councils Peter. Although in light of that is the Filioque Clause a red herring? Should the Latin Church remove it from the Credo?
My comment is not about the filioque, one way of the other.
In any event, the filioque was added long after the earliest councils, maybe in in the 6th century (says Wikipedia). The filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son”) was present in the ancient texts and–I have read–put forth by the Synod of Aachen in 809, and introduced in Rome in 1014. It was adopted by the Greeks and the Latins at the Councils of Lyon (II, 1274), and Florence (1438-1445) where it was initially agreed that the Greek “through the Son” did not differ essentially from “from the Son”, but the Greeks have since disagreed, spurred in part by the earlier destruction of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders in 1204…
As theologian Henry Ford has remarked, “History is just one damn thing after another.”
Hmm. Celebrating a 1,700-year anniversary.
Isn’t that the very definition of backwardist? I thought that Bergoglio said Synodolatry was supposed to eliminate all that ancient stuff and replace it with now-a-go-go Catholique hipness.
Oh, Holy Father, do you hear yourself to any degree? Being with Fiducia Supplicans, and begin numbering everything else to understand how your personal efforts have destroyed any hope of a “unity” at this time with our Eastern brothers and sisters.
Father, I have followed the old advice to observe your actions rather than listen to your words. Your path is one of purposeful confusion and eventual destruction.
I will hold the Church instituted by Jesus Christ and ignore all those that think they can destroy the Son of God’s work.
A fine article defending the Filioque was published by Tim Staples in the Catholic Answers website in 2016. It’s a very worthwhile read.
Over and above the “Filioque Controversy,” what I find very troubling about the Eastern Orthodox Church is its rejection of Our Lord’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. While paying some lip service to indissolubility, this sacred teaching is viewed and taught only as a highly recommended ideal, and the sinful practice of divorce and remarriage, even multiple times, is permitted in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Eastern Orthodox claim that the Pope did not have the authority to approve of the Filioque, which is wrong but at least debatable to some degree. At the same time, the Eastern Orthodox do not have any authority to reject Jesus’ teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, which is not debatable, yet the Eastern Orthodox continue to act in defiance of what Jesus teaches and the Catholic Church upholds. This is even a larger stumbling block to reunification, and there can be no compromise or word manipulation that might occur regarding the Filioque when it comes to the necessity of prohibiting marriage and divorce.
What is the likelihood at the present time that the Eastern Orthodox will admit the glaring error of their rationalizing Jesus’ teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, and also accept what the Catholic Church rightly upholds? And if they will not do this, reunification without it should not even be considered.
Tom Flanders: A most critical point. Why? Because the Pauline corpus tells us that marriage is a reflection of Christ’s relationship with His Church. It is a spousal relationship that, like marriage, is permanent (unto death), faithful, and meant to be fruitful. Christian marriage is not a secular institution; it is part of the Divine plan for man to live out his vocation. Christ and His Church are one. In it, there is no division. The marital partners are one and cannot be separated once united.
Deacon Peitler: Thanks for providing an unnecessary description of our Church’s basic teaching on indissolubility. The critical point is not the teaching per se, but that the Eastern Orthodox view with favor the same thing we teach, including some of the basics you provided, but only as a highly recommended ideal that allows for some exceptions not recognized by our Church.
In fact, you could provide a detailed thesis on the Catholic Church’s teaching on indissolubility and the Eastern Orthodox Church would accept all or most of it, but only as the ideal and not definitive so as to permit exceptions, and this also makes reunification problematic, which is, once more, the critical point.
Regarding your last paragraph, the Orthodox rightly point out that the abuse of the Roman Catholic “marriage tribunals” points out our hypocrisy in claiming adherence to the Gospel. (I have a family member who has had no fewer than THREE Catholic “marriages.”) And to that, we can now add Fiducia Supplicans and official approval for blessings of homosexual “couples.” And this has been going on for a long time. I remember a priest telling my high school class (in the 1970s) that he blessed homosexual couples. Why should the Orthodox take us seriously when we talk about marriage and sexual morality?
The Eastern Orthodox do not rightly point out any hypocrisy in Church teaching when some abuses of the teaching take place. This is the Protestant argument in support of the Reformation (i.e. rebellion) regarding abuses involving indulgences that you have now adopted and promoted as well regarding any abuses in marriage tribunals.
There cannot be 3 Catholic “marriages” if the first 2 were rightly declared null and void, though your anecdotal example is a sad one because it has led to you adopting a false understanding that there was abuse in the tribunals, and if so, this means a teaching is wrong or not to be taken seriously. Even if precisely the case as you point out, if a marriage tribunal fails to do its job, it is NOT the fault of Church teaching; it’s a failure of the individuals in not properly exercising their office. Also, such failures do not make the teaching hypocritical or wrong, nor do they lend any credence for any group to separate itself from our Lord’s Church.
Fiducia Supplicans is a bad document and rightly condemned by the Eastern Orthodox and others, but once again, this has nothing to do with our Lord’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage that the Catholic Church gets right while the Eastern Orthodox gets woefully wrong, and officially approves of adultery in the form of divorce and remarriage. And this has been going on in the Eastern Orthodox Church for a very long time.
Lastly, the Orthodox should take the Catholic Church seriously because they are outside the One True Church, and we teach the truth about the indissolubility of marriage while the Orthodox continue to defy our Lord and defend their sinful ways by not correcting their sins. And then apologists for the Eastern Orthodox Church will, in prideful Lutherian fashion, point out some abuses of Church teaching and jump to the sinful conclusion that because there is abuse in the Catholic Church, the Orthodox have every right to ignore the correct teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and promote adultery in the process.
I am not sure which of your paragraphs is more laughable. The second? Or the third? John Senior used to say “If Rembert Weakland is inside the Church, how can we positively declare that anyone else is outside the Church?” Jorge Bergoglio has taken that observation to another level. I would listen to most Orthodox bishops on a matter of importance to Christians before I would listen to Pope Francis. That is how bad things are.
When do you plan to disobey Jesus and join an Orthodox Church? I hope you won’t do this, but rationalizations and irrelevancies abound in your comments, all for the purpose of promoting the Orthodox over Christ’s One True Church. Because of your rationalizing approach that also features adolescent dismissals instead of more serious engagement, unless the good Lord provides you with some better reasoning skills and wisdom in general, you are pathetically deluding yourself into soon effectuating the more problematic rationalization of wrongly leaving our Lord’s Church for the schismatic Orthodox. That is truly how bad things are.
Bartholomew is constantly looking for ways to assert himself and his agenda and party, all partly shrouded, already seen to be full of misgivings and their own promotions; and, I believe, this is not the way for the Church to follow.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) the Orthodox Churches (and Western “ecclesial communities”) were invited as OBSERVERS. In 2025 at a joint celebration with the Orthodox, should we wonder who else might be invited, now—vaguely synodally?
Might we compare with the different World Congress of Religions (convened in Chicago on 9/11!) at which were delivered 124 papers of all sorts, even “Extracts from the Koran”. And, including six Catholics, especially CARDINAL GIBBONS with his “Needs of Humanity Supplied by the Catholic Religion,” from which:
“The religion of Christ imparts to us not only a sublime conception of God, but also a rational idea of man and of his relations to his Creator. Before the coming of Christ man was a riddle and a mystery to himself. He knew not whence he came nor whither he was going. He was groping in the dark. All he knew for certain was that he was passing through a brief phase of existence. The past and the future were enveloped in a mist which the light of philosophy was unable to penetrate. Our Redeemer has dispelled the cloud and enlightened us regarding our origin and destiny and the means of attaining it. He has rescued man from the frightful labyrinth of error in which paganism had involved him.” (As with Gibbons, the very same message reaffirmed by VATICAN II: “Christ the Lord…by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to himself and makes his supreme calling clear,” Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).
NICAEA in 325 A.D., the first of 21 ecumenical councils, was convened to examine—and then clearly exclude (non-inclusive!)—Arianism as the opening wedge in those days for reintroducing pagan broadmindedness into the sacramental Mystical Body of Christ, himself.
SUMMARY: With Nicaea, Gibbons and Vatican II—how to clearly proclaim Christ in the Church universal, but without rendering ambiguous its defining contours? The Apostolic Succession and “hierarchical communion,” valid Holy Orders, the unity of faith and reason, and that sort of stuff.
World Congress of Religions in 1893 (September 11), at the same time and place as the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago (May 5 to October 31).
The neopagan “Mayan Rite” – or whatever you want to call it – is just Bergoglio’s latest assault on the Faith. Pope Francis has set back ecumenism for centuries. No self-respecting Orthodox would take him seriously in any theological or dogmatic discussion. One of my Orthodox friends just laughs and rightly mocks the entire Roman circus we are sadly witnessing.
“Pope” Francis + World Ecumenism + Synodal Church + Roman Catholicism
= One World Religion
Do the math.
Hyper Ecumenism by Francis is just another contrivance for him to prove he’s the greatest pope in history, willing to take bold steps that no one ever did before because they were not as great as he is.
And the statement of the Cardinal:
“Christians are not persecuted because they are Catholic, Lutheran or Anglican, but because they are Christians.”
Not true historically and especially not true in present times. Francis persecutes Catholics for being Catholic.
Ultimatly the Valtorta debate is secondary…there are too many bi bles..Christians need to sort this And as regards translations the Holy Spirit needs to be involved and the faithful need to know it. The language you think in changes your thinking so what is the best language to think like God? While you ponder attend to the 7 Mercies.
There is a wicked part of me that sometimes hopes one of the many Hollywood celebrities that get special treatment for a private audience will convert the great ecumenist to scientology prompting his resignation from the papacy.
I would point out to Flanders and Williams, above, also to Anna, Orthodox can not justify their defections on faith on any basis, whether by reference to hypocrisy and/or weaknesses, etc., of members of the Roman Church on indissolubility of marriage. Or unhappy parts of history. And so on. Getting your back up, turning 2 wrongs into right, going round in circles, gratuitous jamming of the other side, leap-frogging – are among the varied problems blocking reconciliation.
That’s like one person arguing with himself in a mirror to try on different animated expressions so everything looks just right and sustains pleasant memory.