Great interview. Thanks for that. I find that most Catholics (both clerical and lay) really are not all that interested in ecumenism nor even see the necessity of it, particularly as a public sign to the world as Jesus said, "May they be one SO THAT ALL MIGHT BELIEVE that you sent me..." I think I am the only one in our archdiocesan region who even bothers to mention the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and invite others to pray it. I suppose our contemporary heavy emphasis upon diversity works against seeing the importance of unity in most Christians minds. But let's pray hard for it and for the important step of a common Easter date!
I pray the unity week. The Coming Home Network usually does a nice series for it. My husband is Protestant, so we live the fallout of division in some ways. Perhaps others are more insulated from that or perhaps, as you say, they don’t comprehend the necessity. Thank you for emphasizing it in your ministry.
I have no idea why the common Easter date is treated as such a big thing. Unity is based on one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism. We already have one Lord and one Baptism, we don't have one Faith. If we solved that, we could procrastinate on one Easter date until the end of time. I don't think Jesus or the Apostles ever mentioned the importance of having the same calendar. The Early Church Fathers seemed to like the idea of the same date, but they also neglected to specify a calendar, and didn't seem to think that anyone had schismed by celebrating on a different date - except by extension from the Pope requiring a particular date. Seems more symbolic than central.
I remember reading a book by a Jesuit who went into Communist Russia to minister. In prison in solitary, he scrounged together bread and raisins to make wine so he could celebrate Mass as often as possible. He laboriously calculated out the date of Easter based on what he could remember and his somewhat erroneous date-keeping. Nearby, in two separate cells, were two other priests doing the same thing. They laboriously calculated out... two other, different dates. They could overhear each other saying Mass. He said he felt quite united with his brother priests.
The common calendar might seem like a small thing, but it will make a difference. The Julian Calendar is well beyond its use-by date, mathematically speaking. It’s getting to a point where we can agree on something ‘small’ (it’s just the date of the Lord’s Death and Resurrection after all…) is a good sign we’ll be able to tackle the rest of the issues.
Walter Czizek’s rather exceptional prison experience aside, of course Jesus and the apostles didn’t have to fuss over a calendar! They used probably the 1st century Roman and Jewish Calendars… although it would have been an interesting issue as the early Christian community grew out into the wider empire who don’t follow the Jewish Calendar…
In my experience, you're more likely to agree with other people on the large things than the small ones, and on things that are objective rather than things that allow for differences among reasonable people. For example, I will hold to my opinion on the best ice cream (black raspberry) against any evidence you could possibly produce. But most people agree that murder is wrong.
We've also been arguing over the date of Easter since before 150 A.D., having successfully settled hundreds of doctrinal questions in the meantime.
As far as something small is concerned, I would start with each side formally forgiving the other for every atrocity or offense they've ever committed, and requiring all their adherents to do the same. After all, both sides agree that this is what a Christian ought to do - and it's something that we can be absolutely certain God's grace will help us with.
Calendars and their merits/utility are not a matter of personal taste like ice cream flavours (Blackberry ice cream is indeed delicious). They matter because they ground us in our creatureliness and are a function of the holy capacity to reason intelligible patterns in our universe that reflects a God who is loving and also oriented towards order in creation. Also, “forgiveness” is such a ‘small matter’ we wouldn’t be approaching almost 1000 years of schism! Sometimes the ‘indirect’ approach of restoring order to one small part of a complex relationship bears more fruit and sets the scene for more fruitful progress towards that point we are stuck on. Worshiping the central mystery of Christianity on the same day every year can only be a good thing in that regard…
Not blackberry. Black raspberry. They are quite different. ;)
Sticking with a calendar that they've used for over a thousand years isn't exactly a matter of personal taste, I agree. The customs of hundreds of generations are not so easily dismissed as ice cream is, seeing as ice cream is a fairly recent invention, and not really central to life. However, the question is not one of whether there shall be the discipline of a calendar, which I agree grounds us and provides patterns and order across time, and also leads us to submit our emotions to something external to ourselves. The question is whether they shall use the calendar that they've been using for a really, really long time, or whether they shall switch to suit the tastes and customs of Rome and forgo the discipline they have been following.
I think the discipline of the calendar and law and feasts and fasts and spiritual practices are all extremely important. I don't think it particularly matters which discipline you follow, as long as you don't switch for arbitrary reasons, or for the sake of conformity.
Forgiveness is a small matter among the mountain of issues we have to tackle, because we already agree on it - we just haven't done it. It's also a central issue, and tackling it successfully will not merely be a small symbolic step, but one which will make everything else possible. And like I said, I'm quite confident that God will pour out assistance for those trying to forgive. I am not so confident that a uniform calendar will merit that. If you're looking for something easy, always pick the thing God wants most, no matter how atrocious or impossible it looks.
The argument over the date of Easter must be won by one side or the other, certainly not both. However it turns out, it will only make one side feel victorious and the other, bullied. Or if both lose, both can feel bullied. Even success will not work out well.
The Julian Calendar is, at least nowadays, a polemics thing. But it's wrapped up in broader Orthodox identity, so it's hard for some to imagine giving up even if it St. Gregory was correct (both in his decision to adjust the calendar, and his method of doing so). I can empathize with that sentiment.
And for not a few Orthodox, it's a case of "the measure of one's Orthodoxy is the measure of one's unilateral opposition to anything vaguely western," like how orthobros still take low-IQ swipes at Latin Catholics for stuff like using the Vulgate or kneeling.
Yeah, it seemed to me like a thing that was being argued about mostly for egotism/identity reasons, and not for anything critical. Which makes it an excellent candidate for "OK, celebrate Easter according to your calendar. We don't actually mind. Now, how about straightening out your inclination to let people "marry" when they're already validly married?"
I don't think we'll be able to get past the hard heads on both sides without compromising, so we'd best let them have the things that aren't doctrine or morals.
God bless Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and his flock, and God bless our Pope and his. May we all be one at the deepest levels as soon as is possible. All you holy men and women, pray for the unity of the Church.
Axios! Many blessings to Patriarch Bartholomew. Hagios ischyros, eleison imas!
Reunification is going to be a bottom-up endeavor. It won't come from people at the top. Other than online orthobro and radtrad personalities, and hardliners in certain Orthodox leadership positions, all the smart Orthodox and Catholic laity and parish clergy that I've encountered (across the US, Western Europe, and the Balkans) really don't see the point in schism anymore, consider us all the same at this point, and want to reunify.
The good news is that the 21st Century is the best time since in the last millenium to finally heal the schism and actually make reunification happen. The bad news is that Rome is totally fumbling this opportunity and squandering it via the Synod on Synodality and the other crud coming out of Rome (Remember just a few months ago when the Copts were like "yeah no, we're done buddy" after Fiducia Supplicans dropped?)
Laity go to their priest with thoughts and concerns->
priest informs other priests who set out creating synodal listening sessions "In the Spirit" ->
group of priests across the entire diocese bring the assembled discussions to the Bishop ->
Bishop encourages others to do the same (with widespread buy-in) ->
Bishop's conferences bring discussions to the Pontiff ->
Decisions, discussions, and catechesis is sent out to the world with clarity, conciseness, and unambiguous orthodoxy
Top Down:
Pontiff initiates listening sessions to the the entire "People of God" with a directed emphasis on those "on the periphery" (making the most faithful feel excluded from the conversation) ->
Bishops conferences set up regimented timeline and methodology for synodal listening sessions ->
Some bishops get really bought in and others do the absolute minimum ->
Some priests get really bought in and others do the absolute minimum ->
Listening sessions occur with expected heterodox changes to doctrine desired by those invested enough to show up ->
everything gets mashed together and reported up the chain ->
Pontiff handpicks a large number of sympathetic clergy and laity ->
Brilliant new use of ROUND tables ->
Endless discussions "in the spirit" with a document that MAY occur in the future that will surely disappoint the "People of God" regardless of stance->
The top-of-the-top guy announces a synod (but not "synod" as everyone understood it) about a weird, vague, undefined term ("synodality") that nobody knew about or used until he himself started using it in 2015. Then, the top-of-the-top guy selects a few high-ranking directors and facilitators to form a top committee. Those few individuals draft a course for what they want the process to do in the end. A survey process then occurs (which engages less than 1% of the people), only to have select sub-committees curate answers into submissions, which are themselves only informed by curated submissions from select sub-committees. Those committee-submissions-from-committee-submissions are then curated by the high-ranking power figures in charge of the process, who discard whatever they don't like while inflating things they already wanted to focus on. Then, the actual synod sessions begin (the surveys and submissions weren't actually officially the synod itself), which is just a small conference of a few hundred select individuals that were sent from smaller committees. These few hundred people then deliberate, and then the high-ranking directors filter out what they like and don't like. The best stuff is then actually removed from the public synod process by the big dogs and entrusted to private, opaque, indefinite working committees of a dozen hand-picked pre-selected individuals each (that may or may not be made public). Repeat the mini-conference-and-private-committee cycle annually for 2-3 years, while providing no updates to the public about what's being discussed.
It's been the most opaque, secretive, pushed-from-the-top-down thing with no involvement with "the people" whatsoever. It's honestly disgusting... we're being lied to our faces about the entire thing from the very start.
"Pontiff initiates listening sessions to the the entire 'People of God' with a directed emphasis on those 'on the periphery' *(making the most faithful feel excluded from the conversation)*"
"‘Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!’"
So if we don't jump into the Synod with both feet, we are the jealous brother of the prodigal son? I've felt like I fit that role many times in my life, but the Synod identity doesn't bring that to mind. You comment does bring to mind the Olympics "Last Supper" parody that was said to be welcoming and inclusive for those groups on the periphery while some Christians are jealous or intolerant and just don't want to let everyone at the table. Sorry, but any Catholic Synod ( or famous Renaissance painting} should not select one group over another. We should all be able to see ourselves at the table, or we should all be able to see ourselves at a table in the Synod. And I tried, but I cant quite find where I fit in. The issues that I would discuss at a synod based on my life were not in the document. So maybe I am the prodigal son and I am too ignorant to see it. So where do I fit in the Church ? And maybe that is the point of the Parable of the Prodigal son. But it also seems to gaslight me into falling for any truth presented by the periphery, and not the Truth that I thought that the church has always taught.
I wouldn’t begrudge anyone for not jumping into something fully with both feet. But if one’s hackles are raised by the mere act of reaching out “with a directed emphasis on those 'on the periphery’” and fully airing out their concerns, that would be a point of concern.
And I don’t think anyone’s trying to make you accept any truth contrary to Church teaching.
Thanks, Matthew. I cannot feel optimistic in the least about the chances of reunion when you see two Greek archbishops in 2014 writing a 89 page letter to Pope Francis urging him to repent of his many errors and convert to Orthodoxy.
Or you get Pope Francis hurling a gratuitous insult at Patriarch Kirill, calling him Putin's altar boy.
Or, as you say, you have Cardinal Fernandez launching Fiducia Supplicans and instantly alienating the Copts.
But another pelvic issue is at least as formidable as an obstacle, ie divorce. All these bright Orthodox and Catholic laypeople that you have spoken to - are none of them concerned about the huge differences in the rules on divorce and remarriage?
I tried very hard to promote ecumenism too but was largely ignored by my parish and diocese. Seems to me it has to take place from the bottom up as well as the top down. Makes a good Catholic wonder what other commands of Christ are ignored.
> Makes a good Catholic wonder what other commands of Christ are ignored.
This is a good point; I am a good Catholic, therefore you make me wonder, and (because I am a pragmatic person) I would add that I don't need to wonder as though it is not possible for me easily to find out (or as though verbs should be left in the passive voice and an effort should not be made to clear up who was responsible: me); I can find out by asking him: "Lord, what commands of yours am I ignoring?" - this will probably be devastating but I'm doing it anyway (in for a penny, in for a pound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALIZ2l9xx6k )
Thks for reply. We all ask this question when we prepare for Reconciliation. I meant, given that Christ stressed unity, why is it that ecumenism is mostly ignored by the parishes and dioceses. Maybe doctrinal differences are best argued at the highest levels but there is so much other cooperative work that can be done at the parish and diocesan levels.
I urge everyone to pray one Hail Mary each day for Christian unity as we approach the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicea. My husband and I began doing this by setting an alarm to remind us. It is so easy and takes less than a minute (15-20 seconds for one Hail Mary).
Part of the awfulness of the Russian Orthodox Church's captivity by the state the way it is being manipulated to intervene in other Orthodox jurisdictions, most notably in Africa. The African continent has always been recognized by the Orthodox world as coming under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria. But many Orthodox priests in Africa struggle financially. If Russians appear with lots of cash on condition they transfer allegiance to the Moscow patriarchate, the temptation is very real. If you doubt the existence of an African Orthodox Church under Alexandria, the story of its growth in Uganda (and now Kenya) is inspiring, depending as it often does on lay initiative and zeal. BTW I am not Orthodox: I am Catholic, but follow these developments. See most recently the ordination of a female deacon - or is she? It is very opaque - for the growing parish in Harare, Zimbabwe, started by a an army officer who had been sent to train in Greece and came back a convert.
Well, you folks have worked all the way up to interviewing the Patriarch of Constantinople. Great work! Any day now, I expect to see "The Pillar sits down with His Holiness, Pope Francis" 😁
Great interview. Thanks for that. I find that most Catholics (both clerical and lay) really are not all that interested in ecumenism nor even see the necessity of it, particularly as a public sign to the world as Jesus said, "May they be one SO THAT ALL MIGHT BELIEVE that you sent me..." I think I am the only one in our archdiocesan region who even bothers to mention the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and invite others to pray it. I suppose our contemporary heavy emphasis upon diversity works against seeing the importance of unity in most Christians minds. But let's pray hard for it and for the important step of a common Easter date!
I pray the unity week. The Coming Home Network usually does a nice series for it. My husband is Protestant, so we live the fallout of division in some ways. Perhaps others are more insulated from that or perhaps, as you say, they don’t comprehend the necessity. Thank you for emphasizing it in your ministry.
I have no idea why the common Easter date is treated as such a big thing. Unity is based on one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism. We already have one Lord and one Baptism, we don't have one Faith. If we solved that, we could procrastinate on one Easter date until the end of time. I don't think Jesus or the Apostles ever mentioned the importance of having the same calendar. The Early Church Fathers seemed to like the idea of the same date, but they also neglected to specify a calendar, and didn't seem to think that anyone had schismed by celebrating on a different date - except by extension from the Pope requiring a particular date. Seems more symbolic than central.
I remember reading a book by a Jesuit who went into Communist Russia to minister. In prison in solitary, he scrounged together bread and raisins to make wine so he could celebrate Mass as often as possible. He laboriously calculated out the date of Easter based on what he could remember and his somewhat erroneous date-keeping. Nearby, in two separate cells, were two other priests doing the same thing. They laboriously calculated out... two other, different dates. They could overhear each other saying Mass. He said he felt quite united with his brother priests.
The common calendar might seem like a small thing, but it will make a difference. The Julian Calendar is well beyond its use-by date, mathematically speaking. It’s getting to a point where we can agree on something ‘small’ (it’s just the date of the Lord’s Death and Resurrection after all…) is a good sign we’ll be able to tackle the rest of the issues.
Walter Czizek’s rather exceptional prison experience aside, of course Jesus and the apostles didn’t have to fuss over a calendar! They used probably the 1st century Roman and Jewish Calendars… although it would have been an interesting issue as the early Christian community grew out into the wider empire who don’t follow the Jewish Calendar…
In my experience, you're more likely to agree with other people on the large things than the small ones, and on things that are objective rather than things that allow for differences among reasonable people. For example, I will hold to my opinion on the best ice cream (black raspberry) against any evidence you could possibly produce. But most people agree that murder is wrong.
We've also been arguing over the date of Easter since before 150 A.D., having successfully settled hundreds of doctrinal questions in the meantime.
As far as something small is concerned, I would start with each side formally forgiving the other for every atrocity or offense they've ever committed, and requiring all their adherents to do the same. After all, both sides agree that this is what a Christian ought to do - and it's something that we can be absolutely certain God's grace will help us with.
Calendars and their merits/utility are not a matter of personal taste like ice cream flavours (Blackberry ice cream is indeed delicious). They matter because they ground us in our creatureliness and are a function of the holy capacity to reason intelligible patterns in our universe that reflects a God who is loving and also oriented towards order in creation. Also, “forgiveness” is such a ‘small matter’ we wouldn’t be approaching almost 1000 years of schism! Sometimes the ‘indirect’ approach of restoring order to one small part of a complex relationship bears more fruit and sets the scene for more fruitful progress towards that point we are stuck on. Worshiping the central mystery of Christianity on the same day every year can only be a good thing in that regard…
Not blackberry. Black raspberry. They are quite different. ;)
Sticking with a calendar that they've used for over a thousand years isn't exactly a matter of personal taste, I agree. The customs of hundreds of generations are not so easily dismissed as ice cream is, seeing as ice cream is a fairly recent invention, and not really central to life. However, the question is not one of whether there shall be the discipline of a calendar, which I agree grounds us and provides patterns and order across time, and also leads us to submit our emotions to something external to ourselves. The question is whether they shall use the calendar that they've been using for a really, really long time, or whether they shall switch to suit the tastes and customs of Rome and forgo the discipline they have been following.
I think the discipline of the calendar and law and feasts and fasts and spiritual practices are all extremely important. I don't think it particularly matters which discipline you follow, as long as you don't switch for arbitrary reasons, or for the sake of conformity.
Forgiveness is a small matter among the mountain of issues we have to tackle, because we already agree on it - we just haven't done it. It's also a central issue, and tackling it successfully will not merely be a small symbolic step, but one which will make everything else possible. And like I said, I'm quite confident that God will pour out assistance for those trying to forgive. I am not so confident that a uniform calendar will merit that. If you're looking for something easy, always pick the thing God wants most, no matter how atrocious or impossible it looks.
The argument over the date of Easter must be won by one side or the other, certainly not both. However it turns out, it will only make one side feel victorious and the other, bullied. Or if both lose, both can feel bullied. Even success will not work out well.
The Julian Calendar is, at least nowadays, a polemics thing. But it's wrapped up in broader Orthodox identity, so it's hard for some to imagine giving up even if it St. Gregory was correct (both in his decision to adjust the calendar, and his method of doing so). I can empathize with that sentiment.
And for not a few Orthodox, it's a case of "the measure of one's Orthodoxy is the measure of one's unilateral opposition to anything vaguely western," like how orthobros still take low-IQ swipes at Latin Catholics for stuff like using the Vulgate or kneeling.
Yeah, it seemed to me like a thing that was being argued about mostly for egotism/identity reasons, and not for anything critical. Which makes it an excellent candidate for "OK, celebrate Easter according to your calendar. We don't actually mind. Now, how about straightening out your inclination to let people "marry" when they're already validly married?"
I don't think we'll be able to get past the hard heads on both sides without compromising, so we'd best let them have the things that aren't doctrine or morals.
God bless Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and his flock, and God bless our Pope and his. May we all be one at the deepest levels as soon as is possible. All you holy men and women, pray for the unity of the Church.
Axios! Many blessings to Patriarch Bartholomew. Hagios ischyros, eleison imas!
Reunification is going to be a bottom-up endeavor. It won't come from people at the top. Other than online orthobro and radtrad personalities, and hardliners in certain Orthodox leadership positions, all the smart Orthodox and Catholic laity and parish clergy that I've encountered (across the US, Western Europe, and the Balkans) really don't see the point in schism anymore, consider us all the same at this point, and want to reunify.
The good news is that the 21st Century is the best time since in the last millenium to finally heal the schism and actually make reunification happen. The bad news is that Rome is totally fumbling this opportunity and squandering it via the Synod on Synodality and the other crud coming out of Rome (Remember just a few months ago when the Copts were like "yeah no, we're done buddy" after Fiducia Supplicans dropped?)
Isn't the Synod on Syndolaity a bottom up endeavor?
No
No
No
I venture to say that it is a "bottoms-up" endeavor, in that we could write a drinking game about it.
If only they televised the synod like the olympics… then we could get a proper drinking game going!
I'm in. Give me the rubrics. I have a Haufbrau handy.
Bottom Up:
Laity go to their priest with thoughts and concerns->
priest informs other priests who set out creating synodal listening sessions "In the Spirit" ->
group of priests across the entire diocese bring the assembled discussions to the Bishop ->
Bishop encourages others to do the same (with widespread buy-in) ->
Bishop's conferences bring discussions to the Pontiff ->
Decisions, discussions, and catechesis is sent out to the world with clarity, conciseness, and unambiguous orthodoxy
Top Down:
Pontiff initiates listening sessions to the the entire "People of God" with a directed emphasis on those "on the periphery" (making the most faithful feel excluded from the conversation) ->
Bishops conferences set up regimented timeline and methodology for synodal listening sessions ->
Some bishops get really bought in and others do the absolute minimum ->
Some priests get really bought in and others do the absolute minimum ->
Listening sessions occur with expected heterodox changes to doctrine desired by those invested enough to show up ->
everything gets mashed together and reported up the chain ->
Pontiff handpicks a large number of sympathetic clergy and laity ->
Brilliant new use of ROUND tables ->
Endless discussions "in the spirit" with a document that MAY occur in the future that will surely disappoint the "People of God" regardless of stance->
Time marches on toward the second coming
Even better:
The top-of-the-top guy announces a synod (but not "synod" as everyone understood it) about a weird, vague, undefined term ("synodality") that nobody knew about or used until he himself started using it in 2015. Then, the top-of-the-top guy selects a few high-ranking directors and facilitators to form a top committee. Those few individuals draft a course for what they want the process to do in the end. A survey process then occurs (which engages less than 1% of the people), only to have select sub-committees curate answers into submissions, which are themselves only informed by curated submissions from select sub-committees. Those committee-submissions-from-committee-submissions are then curated by the high-ranking power figures in charge of the process, who discard whatever they don't like while inflating things they already wanted to focus on. Then, the actual synod sessions begin (the surveys and submissions weren't actually officially the synod itself), which is just a small conference of a few hundred select individuals that were sent from smaller committees. These few hundred people then deliberate, and then the high-ranking directors filter out what they like and don't like. The best stuff is then actually removed from the public synod process by the big dogs and entrusted to private, opaque, indefinite working committees of a dozen hand-picked pre-selected individuals each (that may or may not be made public). Repeat the mini-conference-and-private-committee cycle annually for 2-3 years, while providing no updates to the public about what's being discussed.
It's been the most opaque, secretive, pushed-from-the-top-down thing with no involvement with "the people" whatsoever. It's honestly disgusting... we're being lied to our faces about the entire thing from the very start.
"Pontiff initiates listening sessions to the the entire 'People of God' with a directed emphasis on those 'on the periphery' *(making the most faithful feel excluded from the conversation)*"
"‘Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!’"
So if we don't jump into the Synod with both feet, we are the jealous brother of the prodigal son? I've felt like I fit that role many times in my life, but the Synod identity doesn't bring that to mind. You comment does bring to mind the Olympics "Last Supper" parody that was said to be welcoming and inclusive for those groups on the periphery while some Christians are jealous or intolerant and just don't want to let everyone at the table. Sorry, but any Catholic Synod ( or famous Renaissance painting} should not select one group over another. We should all be able to see ourselves at the table, or we should all be able to see ourselves at a table in the Synod. And I tried, but I cant quite find where I fit in. The issues that I would discuss at a synod based on my life were not in the document. So maybe I am the prodigal son and I am too ignorant to see it. So where do I fit in the Church ? And maybe that is the point of the Parable of the Prodigal son. But it also seems to gaslight me into falling for any truth presented by the periphery, and not the Truth that I thought that the church has always taught.
I wouldn’t begrudge anyone for not jumping into something fully with both feet. But if one’s hackles are raised by the mere act of reaching out “with a directed emphasis on those 'on the periphery’” and fully airing out their concerns, that would be a point of concern.
And I don’t think anyone’s trying to make you accept any truth contrary to Church teaching.
Thanks, Matthew. I cannot feel optimistic in the least about the chances of reunion when you see two Greek archbishops in 2014 writing a 89 page letter to Pope Francis urging him to repent of his many errors and convert to Orthodoxy.
https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2014/04/15/news/two-orthodox-bishops-accuse-the-pope-of-heresy-1.35766631
Or you get Pope Francis hurling a gratuitous insult at Patriarch Kirill, calling him Putin's altar boy.
Or, as you say, you have Cardinal Fernandez launching Fiducia Supplicans and instantly alienating the Copts.
But another pelvic issue is at least as formidable as an obstacle, ie divorce. All these bright Orthodox and Catholic laypeople that you have spoken to - are none of them concerned about the huge differences in the rules on divorce and remarriage?
https://www.thyateira.org.uk/chapel/theorthodoxfaith/divorces/#:~:text=When%2C%20therefore%2C%20a%20marriage%20has,of%20philanthropia%20(loving%20kindness).
great interview--what a good catch for the Pillar to get this!
If the Orthodox and Catholic Churches agree on a fixed date for Easter, it will be interesting to see if Protestant Churches follow suit.
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
I tried very hard to promote ecumenism too but was largely ignored by my parish and diocese. Seems to me it has to take place from the bottom up as well as the top down. Makes a good Catholic wonder what other commands of Christ are ignored.
> Makes a good Catholic wonder what other commands of Christ are ignored.
This is a good point; I am a good Catholic, therefore you make me wonder, and (because I am a pragmatic person) I would add that I don't need to wonder as though it is not possible for me easily to find out (or as though verbs should be left in the passive voice and an effort should not be made to clear up who was responsible: me); I can find out by asking him: "Lord, what commands of yours am I ignoring?" - this will probably be devastating but I'm doing it anyway (in for a penny, in for a pound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALIZ2l9xx6k )
Thks for reply. We all ask this question when we prepare for Reconciliation. I meant, given that Christ stressed unity, why is it that ecumenism is mostly ignored by the parishes and dioceses. Maybe doctrinal differences are best argued at the highest levels but there is so much other cooperative work that can be done at the parish and diocesan levels.
I urge everyone to pray one Hail Mary each day for Christian unity as we approach the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicea. My husband and I began doing this by setting an alarm to remind us. It is so easy and takes less than a minute (15-20 seconds for one Hail Mary).
Part of the awfulness of the Russian Orthodox Church's captivity by the state the way it is being manipulated to intervene in other Orthodox jurisdictions, most notably in Africa. The African continent has always been recognized by the Orthodox world as coming under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria. But many Orthodox priests in Africa struggle financially. If Russians appear with lots of cash on condition they transfer allegiance to the Moscow patriarchate, the temptation is very real. If you doubt the existence of an African Orthodox Church under Alexandria, the story of its growth in Uganda (and now Kenya) is inspiring, depending as it often does on lay initiative and zeal. BTW I am not Orthodox: I am Catholic, but follow these developments. See most recently the ordination of a female deacon - or is she? It is very opaque - for the growing parish in Harare, Zimbabwe, started by a an army officer who had been sent to train in Greece and came back a convert.
Well, you folks have worked all the way up to interviewing the Patriarch of Constantinople. Great work! Any day now, I expect to see "The Pillar sits down with His Holiness, Pope Francis" 😁