Vatican City, Aug 21, 2017 / 04:11 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- As he arrived to Russia for his official three-day visit, Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin said the Holy See has a special role on the global scene given its attention to both spiritual and diplomatic themes.
“The Holy See simultaneously performs both a spiritual and a diplomatic role,” Cardinal Parolin said in an Aug. 20 interview with Russian news agency TASS. “That is why the Vatican diplomacy is of special nature.”
“It does not rely on any other force, except for taking care of every person and every nation through dialogue,” he said, adding that with these aspects in mind, discussion with his Russian counterparts will focus on “the issues which are of mutual interest for us, as well as crises in different parts of the world, which are both distant and very near.”
The meeting with Patirarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, in particular serves as proof of the openness that has come as a result of his historic meeting with Pope Francis in Havana last year, Parolin said, noting how both Kirill a nd Francis “spoke of rapprochement as a shared path.”
“When we walk this path together and conduct fraternal dialogue, we can feel the moments of unity. This path requires the search for truth, as well as love, patience, persistence and determination.”
Cardinal Parolin spoke to TASS the day before his official Aug. 21-24 visit to Russia, during which he is set to meet with several heavy-hitters including Patriarch Kirill, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and several other high-level members of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The interview touched not only on the Holy See’s diplomatic task, but it also focused largely on relations between the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches, specifically in terms of preserving traditional Christian values. Parolin also spoke of U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies so far during his brief tenure, and the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.
Traveling with Parolin as part of his official delegation is Msgr. Visvaldas Kulbokas, adviser to the apostolic nunciature of Russia and an official in the Relations with States section of the Vatican’s Secretariat of State.
On Aug. 21, the first day of this visit, Parolin met with the Catholic cardinals and bishops of Russia, and in the evening presided over Mass at the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Moscow, after which he held a friendly encounter with clergy and the laity.
He also met with Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, President of the Department for External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Tomorrow morning, Aug. 22, is dedicated to a working session with Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, while in the evening Parolin will meet with Patriarch Kirill, and will hold a brief press conference afterward.
On Wednesday, Aug. 23, the last day of his visit, Cardinal Parolin will head to Sochi for his official meeting with President Putin. No other official meetings are on the schedule before the cardinal returns to Rome Aug. 24.
In his interview with TASS, Cardinal Parolin said the Vatican has been “working on the idea of the visit to Russia for a long time,” and that it is finally possible largely as a result of the February 2016 meeting between Pope Francis and Kirill.
“That meeting was the first step that had been expected for a long time,” he said. Not only did it strengthen contracts between representatives of the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches, “which became more frequent and filled with concrete content,” but it also prompted the churches “to look at the discrepancies we had in the past and their causes in a new way.”
Although tensions can still be felt as the result of differing opinions on various issues, Parolin said Francis and Kirill’s meeting “helped us see the unity we are striving for, the unity which is required by the Gospels we profess.”
“It is very important that we have this renewed mutual positive view that every servant of the God, priest and believer will share,” he said, stressing that in his opinion, this is the condition “for the fulfillment of new and, I would say, unprecedented steps in the development of the ecumenical dialogue and the rapprochement of our Churches.”
When asked how their Churches can work together to preserve traditional values and not impede efforts for modern democracy, Parolin noted that unfortunately “there is no shortage of challenges that the modern world produces.”
It’s not just about preserving values so much as “the very concept of human personality and human dignity,” he said, pointing to the specific challenges presented by showing respect for humanity and his work, striving for social justice, interpersonal relations and relations among States.
“These are all challenges of a peaceful existence,” the cardinal said, noting that when their Churches insist on following the Gospel and upholding the values found in scripture, “they do so not to humiliate a modern person or to put unnecessary pressure on him but to show the path to salvation and fulfillment.”
“When performing this mission, which never ends, it is extremely important to establish effective cooperation between different religious denominations,” he said, adding that greater mutual understanding between Churches and the exchange of experiences “may become an important contribution to understanding of these problems.”
Pointing to the Catholic Church’s decision to “loan” relics of the well-loved Orthodox Saint Nicholas, consisting of several bone fragments currently housed in Bari, to Russia over the summer, Parolin said the gesture served as a “spiritual uplift” of sorts for the Russian Orthodox Church.
“There is no doubt that this event and other similar initiatives, which can be called the ‘ecumenism of the saints,’ give an opportunity to fully feel what already unites Christians,” he said.
The relics were sent from Bari to the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow from May 22-July 12, and were venerated by President Putin and thousands of Orthodox faithful.
Not only was the event important for the spiritual life of believers, but it also served as an example for future initiatives and gave “a new impetus” to dialogue on “more complex” issues in Church relations, he said.
When it comes to fighting terrorism, Parolin said there are two important factors to keep in mind, the first being the decisions on the part of governments “which are often dictated by concrete situations.”
“When one faces a situation of this kind, one has to make a certain choice based on the politicians’ assessments,” he said. “No doubt, the need to tackle terrorism is evident for the Church, but all actions must be weighted in order to prevent a situation in which the use of force would trigger spiraling violence or lead to violations of human rights, including the freedom of religion.”
On the other hand, the Church is always guided by a “long-term perspective,” he said, which first of all involves fostering personal development, particularly among younger generations, as well as “solid dialogue between religions.”
“During the past decades, the Holy See has been making all possible efforts to establish, strengthen or restore dialogue on the cultural and religious levels and in the social and humanitarian sphere,” the cardinal said, adding that he is “absolutely convinced that life under the guidance of the Gospel would in itself make an important contribution into forming the society and culture.”
Asked about some of U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial policies since taking office, including his decision to pull out of the 2016 Paris Climate agreement, and what the Vatican expects from Trump, Parolin voiced hope that the two States can move forward in mutual respect.
The meeting in May between Pope Francis and Trump “was held in the atmosphere of mutual respect and I would say, with mutual sincerity” in which both men were able to voice their thoughts and concerns.
Parolin voiced his hope that despite Trump’s determination to “fulfill the electoral promises” and despite Washington’s withdrawal from the Paris accord, “pragmatic approaches will prevail in continuation to the US administration’s decision to keep the climate change discussion running.”
“We, in our turn, can only wish that President Trump, just like other members of the international community, does not neglect the extremely difficult task of tackling the global warming and its negative consequences.”
The cardinal then said that in his opinion, international relations are “increasingly dominated” by policies and strategies “based on open clashes and confrontations.”
Describing this phenomena as a “’dialogue of the deaf,’ or, worse, (policies that) fuel fears and are based on intimidation with nuclear or chemical weapons,” Parolin said he believes there is a common realization that such approaches “do not lead to correct solutions and fail to ease tensions between states.”
He pointed to how Pope Francis’ insistence that “building peace is a path,” explaining that this path “is a lot thornier than war and conflict.”
“Building peace requires a patient and constructive dialogue with mutual respect instead of focusing all attention to own national interests,” Parolin said. “This is all that is expected from the leaders of global powers.”
[…]
What a journey. All have gathered to sow what was planted. To share the harvest of what grew. To remind us that allare called to go together, Synodaling into the future, following Franciscus. We have style, an attitude, etc., and so on, and so forth.
While time did not permit Leo to stay for the entire afternoon session, it’s grand that they got a few photos before the Pope had to press on…
Synodaling is like a flash mob, eating Tide pods, wearing baggy bell bottoms, sporting a mullet, bowl cut or rat tail. Synodaling is similar to collecting Pet Rocks, Silly Bandz, Pokémon Cards, Chia Pets, Cabbage Patch Kids or Beanie Babies. Synodaling looks like planking or gatherings to each try and solve Rubin’s Cube.
A style and attitude, Holy Father? With respect, did not the Church discover that originally at it’s birth, so what is need for synodality?
Are we witnessing the maturation of Synodality, the finessed articulation of the premises advanced in Amoris Laetitia? Or are we not?
We read of synodality “as a style, an attitude that helps us to be Church.”
Surely, too, as Pope Benedict explained in 1985 (The Ratzinger Report), that even “a Council [or synod] is what the Church DOES, not what the Church IS [as in “TO BE Church”]. So, not a radical deconstruction of governance as with an “inverted-pyramid.”
A subtle memo, here, to post-synodal study groups #9, #14 and #15 on the “hot button issues,” to possibly edit their recent homework (#9: “Theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues;” #14: “the synodal method;” and #15: “the ‘place’ of the synodal Church in mission.”)
Instead, yes, a valued but clearly defined attitude or style “…promoting authentic experiences of participation and communion.” But not a process to displace the accountable Apostolic Succession with a town-hall non-structure of governance. The distinct “Synod of Bishops… naturally retains its institutional physiognomy.” Likewise the “local Churches.”
What’s not to like about Leo’s succinct and papal style of “walking together” within the acknowledged “hierarchical communion” of the Council (Lumen Gentium)?
It’s prudent and virtuously hopeful to interpret Leo XIV as you have. Some of the wisest say give the man some time. Although on the other hand it’s surprising as you allude to saying ‘What’s not to like’ that so many here who were hoping for a new pontificate and return to clarity and fidelity are roundly disappointed.
Yes, indeed! There’s a very troubling phenomena occurring with Leo, in which people are claiming he’s very different from Francis but they read things into what he says or look at some singular thing he did 10 years ago to justify their view. If Leo was trying to somehow dismiss synodality, he should actually be doing something to dismantle it, but he’s only been encouraging it, including using the same fluffy, vagueness. We’re at a very dangerous point of now accepting the bad things Francis put in place, because we don’t have the nastiness and such that accompanied it, while Leo has resumed some traditional aspects of the papacy. We just want to breathe a sigh of relief and be satisfied with the absence of the outright hostility Francis gave us. As far as substantial actions of Leo go, they’re mostly problematic, e.g., the kind of people he’s been appointing as bishops or officials at the holy see. Even more, we must look at what’s not being done, which is any reversal from Francis. We can’t continue to say “give him time” much longer, as he’s had plenty already to do negative things, e.g., he took time to assign various heterodox cardinals/bishops as advisors to a vatican dicastery this past week, so he could just as well have done something about other vatican posts/people, but he didn’t. And obviously if those are the types he’s appointing, it’s even more doubtful he’ll be replacing Fernandez, Grech, hollerich, Roche(he was one of the above mentioned appointments!) This is even more so as there was no pressing need to do the former.
“Indeed, you are here because the assembly has recognized you as credible interpreters of synodality.”
I can only conclude that I have not only missed this train, but I have bought the wrong ticket at the wrong station for the wrong destination.
I understand that the definition of synodality is that it is a “journey.”
I have missed the critical connections of this “journey” in regard to its starting point, its destination and most important of all, how this synodal journey connects to Jesus Christ, who is the ONLY Way, Truth and Life.
Since Jesus Christ, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium have given us the fullness of Divine revelation, I am at a loss to understand what the purpose of this “synodal journey” is, and what it is supposed to give the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that it must have been sorely lacking up until the pontificate of Francis I.
The unfathomable ambiguity of synodality frightens me, and my instincts tell me to flee from this.
The people who support synodality make me feel uneasy.
For now, I can do nothing but to keep my distance and watch to see what unfolds. My faith and trust is in Christ.
The synodalists have much to do in order to win me over.
“Helps us to be Church.”
That is bureaucrat-speak.
The same phrase jumped out at me as well, Chris — “Helps us be Church.”
Because somehow I didn’t realize the word, “Church,” was an adjective.
I thought it was a verb.
Which would mean, “Helps us to be Church,” becomes, “Helps us to Church.”
And so we become “Churchers,” or, perhaps, “people who Church.”
The Dark Vatican remains dusky, even months after Bergoglio’s departure.
Yes.
It all sends a message “We’re not serious people.”
Exactly. It is the tone used by effeminate men trying to be “hip.”
Modernist double speak.
Well, if it’s a style and an attitude, it isn’t a binding structure, so I’d call Leo’s description an improvement.
Bingo!
“… the current pontiff said. “And the legacy he [Pope Francis ] has left us seems to me to be above all this: that synodality is a style, an attitude that helps us to be Church, promoting authentic experiences of participation and communion.””
It is quite self-descriptive. A style, especially in our time of post-modernism, has no life in itself; give me a bunch of flowers and I can arrange them in many different styles, from baroque to minimalism. Alternatively, I can just trim their stems and put them, unadorned, into the plane glass jar. They still will be the flowers, with their unique life or “flower-substance”, as God designed them. The best style of arranging them is the one which considers that peculiar “flower-substance” and highlights it.
This is why a style is always subordinate to the essence of the phenomenon; a style without the substance (meaning) is meaningless and empty.
As I see it, this principal is true for the Church as well. If it is so, before defining any “style” of whatever the Church does, one must define the core of the Church first, especially its Head, Christ. What “style” would be appropriate for Christ and his Church?
However, the reference to Christ and His Church (not just “church” but “Christ’s Church”) immediately shows that the word “style” does not go well with Christ somehow, probably because it lacks the substance and also because Our Lord never thought and thought in terms of “style”. Pope Leo adds to the word “style” the word “attitude”. It improves the situation a bit, but then he says that the attitude is for “promoting authentic experiences of participation and communion.” The ultimate purpose of “experiences of participation and communion” seems to be a promotion of so-called “synodality” that is “a style”. Or is it that “a style’s = synodality’s” ultimate purpose is to promote “authentic experiences of participation and communion”? I think so; I think I have just come up the most “coherent” explanation of what synodality is. It is an attitude which promotes some “experiences of communion”. There is probably some style in it but no substance whatsoever.
Why am I so certain? Simply because there is only one way “to experience communion” with each other. It is done via partaking from the Chalice and becoming one via Christ. I have to correct myself here: it is a true communion with the other via Christ, not “an experience” of such. Whether we have subjective experiences of that communion or not is quite irrelevant because it is the objective divine action of Christ in us (he is the guarantor of that communion truly happening). As a response to that action, the next step for everyone is to practice an attitude to the other as to A PERSON. An attitude to a person means respect, seeing, hearing, interacting meaningfully and so on. It is often difficult and this is why we need Christ to act in us. This is it. It is not a “style” but a ground reality. It is not about “experiences”. It is about receiving Christ and treating others as He wants us to: not lying and deceiving, not abusing, not brushing off, not devaluing, not trying to use the other for self-satisfaction and so on. And this is all to that. (NB: this true attitude to each other in truth can be very uncomfortable for the other who used to lies; Christ did it and this is why He was not universally liked.)
I have no doubts that one may experience synodality-related activities as “authentic experiences of participation and communion”. However, what are the fruits of those “communion and participation”? The true fruits should be doing away with all that is against that “communion and participation”, namely doing away with all kinds of abuse within the Church (including liturgical), stopping unjust prosecution of the members of the organization which “communes and participates”, weeding out all that is contrary to its Head, Christ. The problem is that it cannot be done “in style”.
Yes. He’s opening up his mindset with catch or buzzwords. Trivializing slogans as you suggest don’t fit well with Christ. Who is our creator, savior, and treasure.
While still early in his Pontificate, Pope Leo is beginning to sound like cross between Pope Francis and fellow Chicagoan-turned-citizen-of-the-world, Barak Obama.
You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing. “Catholic” Democrat politicians are all breathing a big sigh of relief. Here is a man who speaks their language.
Leo didn’t have time to stay for the whole session?
“… helps us to be Church.” Fabulous. Right out of the 1970s. Francis II is going to be such a terrific pope.
I tend to see attitude and style as less than essential substance. How does Leo define those words? Attitude and style may reflect authentic essence, but they may also screen nothing more than smoke.
Pro-NO liturgist lovers commenting at CWR this past week raged most notably about the attitude and clothing styles of TLM-ers.
Il ne faut pas se fier aux apparences.
I HOPE that Leo’s words about attitude and style simply reflect him biding his time, taking the temperature of those ‘people of God’ around him. He seems a somewhat cautious and prudent character.
Are we hoping against hope or are we seeing into the darkness something truly sinister?
A test of your last sentence may likely be his response to Cdl Raymond Burke’s request for a reversal of Traditionis Custodes and a return to Summorum Pontificum. Progressive Bishops are rapidly prohibiting the TLM in their dioceses.
Leo XIV by calling Synodality a ‘style, an attitude’ attempts to change the actual meaning of Synodality as previously professed as a Synodal Church. He fails in doing so because the manner in which the Synod continues to exercise its function hasn’t changed.
What is Synodality in essence if not a glorified, glorified by universality, parish council? As were the early parish councils, more deliberative than consultative, composed of laity and clergy the former frequently given prominence. Why should it be deemed deliberative when it’s been described as consultative? The end. If we continue to debate permanent doctrine it no longer remains permanent doctrine.
Repeated here is a segment from my comment to the article ‘Synodality is the result of a theological error: Küng vs. Ratzinger 2.0’.
“Essentially, the Church is not a consultative assembly, but rather an assembly around the Word of God and around the Sacrament” (Msgr Grichting). Fr Hans Kung was a close associate of Cdl Carlo Martini Archbishop of Milan who initially devised and promoted the concept of Synodality, a restructuring of the Church as a permanent consultative body formulated at St Gallen Switzerland. Francis I when archbishop of Buenos Aires was mentored by Cdl Martini.
In matters of faith and theological reflection, I am drawn to discourse characterized by lucidity and directness. The use of convoluted or ambiguous language, often termed “word salad,” is not conducive to authentic engagement, as it tends to obscure rather than illuminate the truths being presented. My own disposition, perhaps characterized by a certain theological simplicity, finds such linguistic opacity profoundly unhelpful, bordering on an impediment to spiritual discernment. I would earnestly request a return to the plain and accessible forms of expression found in centuries of English or French theological tradition.
The initial anticipation surrounding the current pontificate is regrettably diminished by the perception of continuity with methodologies that, under the preceding pontiff, ultimately proved to be counterproductive to the Church’s mission. This echo of past strategies evokes a measure of profound disappointment.
Chris in Maryland above – Who is your “bingo” for?
I’m with Rich Leonardi.
I say we give Leo some time. He can’t really come out and say, “You guys are full of hot air. Go home.”
Sure he can. He is the Pope. He just has to have an ounce of common sense and courage.
Any day now, Where Peter Is will be explaining to us that the Pope’s troubling statements are really just faulty translations from his native tongue.