Vatican City, May 13, 2017 / 02:32 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The following is an unofficial transcript of the in-flight press conference on the papal plane returning from Fatima to Rome on May 13, 2017.
Greg Burke: Thank you Holiness, they were 24 very intense hours, as you said, for the Lord, 24 hours for Our Lady. It’s apparent that the Portuguese felt very touched when you said, “We have a Mother,” that they feel this in a special way. 100 years ago Our Lady didn’t appear to three important journalists, she appeared to three shepherds, but we’ve seen how they with their simplicity and sanctity were able to make this message reach the entire world. The journalists make the message arrive – it is seen from the number of nations from which they come – and they’re very curious about this trip of yours. If you’d like to say something first, great…
Pope Francis: First of all, good evening. Thanks. And, I’d like to respond to the first of the possible questions, so we can do things a bit more quickly. I’m sorry when we’re at the halfway point and they come to tell me that it’s snack time… let’s do them all together. Thanks.
Greg Burke: Good, let’s begin with the Portuguese group, with Fatima Ferreira of the Portuguese TV Radio
Anna Elza Ferreira (Redevida de Televisao): I don’t know what I think about sitting in front of the Holy Father. Well, first, many thanks for this trip. Holy Father, you came to Fatima as a pilgrim, to canonize Francisco and Jacinta in the year that the apparitions mark their 100th year. From this historical point of view, what is left now for the Church, for the entire world? Also, Fatima has a message of peace. Holy Father, you are going to receive in the Vatican in the coming days, the 24th of May, the American president Donald Trump. What can the world expect and what does the Holy Father expect from this encounter? Many thanks.
Pope Francis: Thanks. Fatima certainly has a message of peace. It’s brought to humanity by three great communicators that were less than 13 years old, which is interesting. Yes, I came as a pilgrim. The canonization was something that wasn’t planned from the beginning, because the process of the miracles was in progress but the all of a sudden the export reports were all positive, and it was done – that’s how the story was told – for me was a very great joy. What can the world expect? Peace. And what am I talking about from now on with whomever? Peace.
Ferreira: And what remains now of this historic moment for the Church?
Pope Francis: A message of peace. And I’d like to say one thing … before disembarking I received scientists from all religions who were doing studies in the Vatican Observatory at Castel Gandolfo, including agnostics and atheists. And an atheist said to me, “I’m an atheist.” I won’t tell you from what ethnicity or place of origin he was – he spoke in English. And at the end, he asked me, ‘I ask you a favor: tell the Christians that they should love their message of peace more.”
Aura Miguel (Radio Renascença): Your Holiness, in Fatima you presented yourself as the “bishop dressed in white.” Up to now, this expression applied rather to the vision of the third part of the secret, St. John Paul II, the martyrs of the twentieth century. What does it mean now, your identification with this expression?
Pope Francis: The prayer, that, I did not write it… the sanctuary wrote it… but also I have tried because they said this, and there is a connection with the white. The bishop of white, Our Lady of white, the white glow of the innocence of children after Baptism and innocence… there is a connection to the color white in that prayer. I believe – because I did not write it – but I believe that literally they have tried to express with white that desire for innocence, for peace… innocence: to not hurt the other … to not create conflict, the same.
Miguel: Is it a revision of the interpretation…
Pope Francis: No, but that vision … I believe that then Cardinal Ratzinger, at that time prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, explained everything clearly. Thank you.
Claudio Lavanga (NBC News): Thank you. Holy Father, yesterday you asked the faithful to break down all the walls, yet on May 24 you meet a head of State who is threatening to build walls. It is a bit contradictory to your word, but he also has – it seems – opinions and decisions different from you in other topics, such as the need to act to confront global warming or the welcoming of migrants … Thus, in light of this meeting: what is your opinion of the politics that President Trump has adopted so far on these topics and what do you expect from a meeting with a Head of State who seems to think and act contrary to you?
Pope Francis: The first question … I can respond to both… I never make a judgment of a person without listening to them. I believe that I should not do this. In our talk things will come out, I will say what I think, he will say what he thinks, but I never, ever, wanted to make a judgment without hearing the person. The second…
Claudio Lavanga: What do you think about the reception of migrants?
Pope Francis: But this you all know well…
Claudio Lavanga: The second instead is what you expect from a meeting with a head of state who thinks contradictory to you?
Pope Francis: Always there are doors that are not closed. Look for the doors that are at least a little bit open, enter and talk about common things and go on. Step by step. Peace is handcrafted. It is made every day. Also friendship among people, mutual knowledge, esteem, is handcrafted. It’s made every day. Respect the other, say that which one thinks, but with respect, but walk together … someone thinks of one way or the other, but say that …. Be very sincere with what everyone thinks, no?
Claudio Lavanga: Do you hope to soften his decisions after the meeting?
Pope Francis: This is a political calculation that I do not permit myself to make.
Greg Burke: Thank you Holiness, now there is a change of places, Elisabetta Piqué is coming.
Elisabetta Piqué (La Nacion): Thanks first of all for this brief and very intense trip. We wanted to ask you, today is the centenary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, but is is also the important anniversary of a fact of your life that took place 25 years ago, when the Nuncio (Archbishop) Calabresi told you that you would become the Auxiliary Bishop of Buenos Aires, something that meant the end of your exile in Cordoba and a great change in your life. Have you every connected this fact that changed your life with Our Lady of Fatima? And in these days that you’ve prayed before her have you thought about this and what did you think about? Can you tell us about that? Thanks.
Pope Francis: Women know everything, eh! No, I didn’t think about the coincidence, only yesterday while I was praying before Our Lady I realized that one May 13th I received the phone call from the nuncio 25 years ago. I don’t know… I said, well look at that. I spoke with Our Lady a little about this. I asked her forgiveness for all of my mistakes, also of a bit of bad taste for choosing people… but yesterday I realized this.
Greg Burke: Nicolas Seneze of La Croix is coming.
Nicolas Seneze (La Croix): Thanks, Holy Father. We’re returning from Fatima for which the Fraternity of St. Pius X has a great devotion and much is said about an agreement that would give an official statute to the Fraternity in the Church. Some even imagined that there would be an announcement today… Holiness, do you think that this agreement is possible in a short timeframe? And, what are the obstacles still? And what is the sense of this reconciliation for you? And, will it be the triumphant return for faithful who have shown what it means to be truly Catholic or what?
Pope Francis: I would toss out any form of triumphalism. None. Some days ago, the Feria Quarta of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, their meeting – the call it the Feria Quarta, because it’s the fourth Wednesday – studied a document and the document still hasn’t reached me, the study of the document. This is the first. Secondly, the current relations are fraternal. Last year, I gave a license for confession to all of them, also a form of jurisdiction for marriages, but even before the problems, the cases they had, for example, had to be resolved by the Doctrine of the Faith. The Doctrine of the Faith carries them forward. For example, abuses. The cases of abuse, they brought them to us, also to the Penitentiary. Also the reduction to the lay state of a priest, they bring to us. The relations are fraternal. With Msgr. Fellay I have a good rapport. I’ve spoken many times… I don’t like to hurry things. Walk. Walk. Walk. And then we’ll see. For me, it’s not an issue of winners and losers, it’s an issue of brothers who must walk together, looking for a formula to make steps forward.
Tassilo Forcheimer (ARD): Holy Father, on the occasion of the anniversary of the Reformation, Evangelical Christians and Catholics are able to walk another stretch of road together. Will there be the possibility to participate in the same Eucharistic Mass? Some months ago, Cardinal Kasper said: A step forward could take place already this year.
Pope Francis: There have been great steps forward, eh … we think of the first statement on justification, from that moment the journey has not stopped… the trip to Sweden was very significant because it was just the beginning and also a commemoration with Sweden… also there is significance for the ecumenism of the journey… that is, to walk together, with prayer, with martyrdom, with works of charity, with works of mercy. And there, Lutheran Caritas and Catholic Caritas have made an agreement to work together. This is a great step. But steps are always awaited. You know that God is the God of surprises. But we must never stop. Always go on. To pray together, to give testimony together and to do works of mercy together, that announce the charity of Jesus Christ, to announce that Jesus Christ is Lord, is the only Savior, and that grace only comes from Him. And on this path the theologians they will continue to study, but the path must proceed. And (with) hearts opened to surprises.
Mimmo Muolo (Avvenire): Good evening Holiness. I’m asking you a question in the name of the Italian group. Yesterday and today at Fatima, we saw a great witness of popular faith together with you. The same that is found, for example, also in other Marian shrines like Medjugorje. What do you think of those apparitions, if they were apparition, and of the religious fervor they have aroused seeing that you have decided to appoint a bishop delegate for the pastoral aspects? And if I can permit myself a second question I know is very close to your heart besides that of us italians… I would like to know, the NGOs were accused of collusion with the boat traffickers of men. What do you think of this? Thanks.
Pope Francis: I’ll start with the first. I read in the papers that I peruse in the morning that there was this problem, but I still don’t know how the details are and because of this I can’t give an opinion. I know there is an issue and the investigations are moving ahead. I hope that they continue ahead and that the whole truth comes out. Medjugorje, all the apparitions, or the presumed apparitions, belong to the private sphere, they aren’t part of the public, ordinary magisterium of the Church. Medjugorje. Medjugorje. A commission was formed, headed by Cardinal Ruini. Benedict XVI made it. I, at the end of 2013 the beginning of 2014, I received the result from Cardinal Ruini. It was commission good theologians, bishops, cardinals, but good. Very good. And the commission. The Ruini report was very, very good. Then there were some doubts in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Congregation judged it opportune to send each one of the members of this Feria quarta (Editor’s note: “Feria Quarta” is a once-a-month meeting in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during which current cases are examined) all the documentation, even those that seemed to be against the Ruini report. I received a notification – I remember it was a Saturday evening, late evening… and it didn’t seem right. It was like putting up for auction – excuse me the word – the Ruini report which was very well done. And Sunday morning the prefect received a letter from me that said that instead of sending them to the Feria Quarta, they they would send the opinions to me personally.
These opinions were studied and all of them underscore the density of the Ruini report. Principally, three things must be distinguished: the first apparitions, that they were kids. The report more or less says that it must continue being studied. The apparitions, the presumed current apparitions: the report has its doubts. I personally am more nasty, I prefer the Madonna as Mother, our Mother, and not a woman who’s the head of a telegraphic office, who everyday sends a message at such hour. This is not the Mother of Jesus. And these presumed apparitions don’t have a lot of value. This I say as a personal opinion. But, it’s clear. Who thinks that the Madonna says, ‘come tomorrow at this time, and at such time I will say a message to that seer?’ No. The two apparitions are distinguished. The third, the core of the Ruini report, the spiritual fact, the pastoral fact. People go there and convert. People who encounter God, change their lives…but this…there is no magic wand there. And this spiritual and pastoral fact can’t be ignored. Now, to see things with all this information, with the answers that the theologians sent me, this good, good bishop was appointed because he has experience, to see the pastoral part, how it’s going. And at the end he’ll say some words.
Muolo: Holiness, thank you, also for the blessing of my fellow citizens who thank you, they saw it and are very happy…
Greg Burke: Holiness, now if I can be the nasty one, we have done all of the language groups and…
Pope Francis: Time is up already?
Greg Burke: There’s a question, they tell me.
Pope Francis: One or two more.
Joshua McElwee (National Catholic Reporter): Thank you, Holy Father. The last member of the Commission for the Protection of Minors, who was abused by a priest, resigned in March. She, Ms. Marie Collins, said that she had to resign because the officials in the Vatican did not implement the recommendations of the commission that you, the Holy Father, approved. I have two questions: who is responsible, and what are you doing, Holy Father, to ensure that the priests and bishops in the Vatican implement the recommendations suggested by your commission?
Pope Francis: Marie Collins explained the matter to me well, I spoke with her, she is a good woman, but she continues to work in the formation of priests on this point… she is a good woman who wants to work … but she made this accusation, and she has a bit of reason… why? Because there are so many late cases, then in this period of lateness, because they accumulate there, you have to make legislation for this… what should the diocesan bishops do? Today in almost all the dioceses there is the protocol to follow in these cases: it is a great improvement. This way the dossiers are done well. Then there are the accusations…this is a step. Another step: there are few people, there needs to be more people capable in this area, and the Secretary of State is looking for, even Monsignor Mueller (Editor’s Note: Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), to present new people. The other day two or three more were approved… the director of the disciplinary office changed, who was good, eh, he was very good but he was a bit tired… he returned to his home country to do the same with his episcopate. And the new one is an Irishman, Msgr. (John) Kennedy, he is a very good person, very efficient, prompt, and this helps a lot.
Then there is another thing: Sometimes the bishops send – if the protocol is okay, it goes right away to the Feria Quarta and the Feria Quarta studies and decides. If the protocol is not okay, it must go back to be redone. That’s why you think of continental help or in a continent or two … in Latin America, one in Colombia, another in Brazil, as pre-tribunals or continental tribunals… this is in the planning… but then it’s fine, they study it at feria quarta and they take away his clerical status. This goes back to the diocese, and the priest makes recourse. First, the application was studied by the same Feria Quarta that had given the sentence, and this is unfair. I created another tribunal and I put an indisputable person as the head, the Archbishop of Malta, Msgr. (Charles Jude) Scicluna, who is one of the strongest against abuses, and this second – because we must be just – the one who makes recourse is entitled to have a defender. If he (the defender) approves the first sentence, the case is over.His only option is a letter asking the Pope for pardon. I have never signed a pardon. I believe, I do not know, another question. This is how things are. We’re going forward. If Marie Collins was right on that point, we were also on the way. But there are 2000 cases piled up.
Portuguese journalist: I’m going to ask a question about the case Portugal, but I think that it can be applied to many of the Western societies. In Portugal, almost all of the Portuguese say they identify themselves as Catholics. But the way the society is organized, the decisions that we make, often are contrary to the indications of the Church. I refer to marriage between homosexuals, the legalization of abortion, now we’re going to begin discussing euthanasia. How do you see this?
Pope Francis: I think it’s a political problem. And that also the Catholic conscience isn’t a catholic one of total belonging to the Church and that behind that there isn’t a nuanced catechesis, a human catechesis. That is, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is an example of what is a serious and nuanced thing. I think that there is a lack of formation and also of culture. Because it’s curious, in some other regions, I think of the south of Italy, some in Latin America, they are very Catholic but they are anti-clerical and ‘priest-eaters’, that … there is a phenomenon that exists. It concerns me. That’s why I tell priests, you will have read it, to flee from clericalism because clericalism distances people. May they flee from clericalism and I add: it’s a plague in the Church. But here there is a work also of catechesis, of raising awareness, of dialogue, also of human values.
[…]
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.