Harry’s point about autocephaly being taken rather than given is salient. The Phanar is just engaging in its peculiar habit of making up history according to its own self-deluding fantasy to claim otherwise. There is precious little in the way of a historical norm of establishing local churches from out of pre-existing ones. It’s a human process, and very political, thus does not conform neatly to theory.

It reminds me of music theory vs.practice of the art. What Byzantine singer actually fusses about the correct ‘Pythagorean’ numerological relationships between the pitches he sings? None; the art existed and then theorists attempted to describe it schematically. The same goes for church life on the large scale. Relations between nations and peoples are sketchy at best and there is not perfect way of administering them.

George,

In what sense is Rome’s ecumenical effort with the Orthodox churches not evil if it is based on the notion that Orthodox ecclesiology must fall into line with Roman Catholic ecclesiology (“integration” under a communion wide primate), thus necessitating the submission of the Orthodox Churches to an Eastern Pope as a prerequisite to their reintegration into the RCC?

Tell me, how does one “integrate” an autocephalous church? Does not such integration necessarily negate conciliarity? If not, of what value to Rome would such integration be since it would not unite the Orthodox churches under one Patriarch such that the other churches would defer to the mother church for purposes of ecumenical dialogue?

The quote presupposes that this had been the effort of the Phanar and that it has been encouraged to this end by Rome.

The cardinal’s comments are very interesting in that the reveal the extent to which Rome’s corruption of the Orthodox has progressed. If Rome is almost in communion with Antioch (at least in the Middle East), and if Rome has been encouraging the “Mother Church” ecclesiology of the Phanar, then it is making an organized effort to subvert Orthodox teaching by using the ecumenical dialogue as a way to persuade Orthodox leaders to abandon Orthodox teaching. Would you not say this is the work of the evil one?

By the way, George, I agree with you regarding the WCC, etc. And I think a productive dialogue on social issues is to be had with the Vatican. I just think that some Orthodox ecumenists have been too influenced by Rome and should rather make clear to the Vatican the type of schema which the Church might accept. Fr. Thomas Hopko outlined such a sketch in his Woodstock speech.

Scott, though I agree with you completely, I for one don’t see that dialogue with Rome is “evil.” If we’re going to dialogue with anyone, I’d rather it be them than the WCC/NCC/axil of weasel. Though the RCC may have unfortunate ideas about papalism, they still understand the reality of morality. That’s important in today’s world.

If we have problems with the RCC’s errors, especially its administrative blunders that led to the present pedophile crisis, we should then consider our own weaknesses in this regard. We need to steer clear of papalism.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

The real question is did he actually say the words in italics? The “no longer able” quote which Greg offers is not really any better. Constantinople never integrated the various Orthodox churches. There was a time when it was much more powerful and more widely respected. But either quote presumes a Roman-type integration. This suggests a non-Orthodox ecclesiology being imposed on the other Orthodox Churches by Constantinople. It presumes that this has been the effort of the Phanar. And it acknowledges that to this point it has been a failure (Thank Christ!).

I suppose it boils down to what “integration” means. But the various churches are in communion. I can go to any New Calendar Greek church, any Russian church, any Serbian church, any Antiochian church and receive communion (if properly prepared to do so). So intercommunion is not what is contemplated by “integration”. The Orthodox churches have always had tensions between them and have at times competed for status, etc. It seems that what the cardinal is referring to is that no Orthodox patriarch can speak for the Church or lead it by his own authority. That is true. It has always been true. That is the Orthodox faith. And that is what the cardinal can’t wrap his mind around.

It’s interesting to hear confirmation from a Roman Catholic cardinal that the Patriarch of Constantinople is being encouraged by the RCC to become an Eastern Pope.

Who out there is left that says ecumenical dialogue with Rome is not evil?

The concept of a ‘Super-Church’ proposed in the 1960’s by Christian ‘representatives’ who are now well past retirement age, if not actually in their graves, has become a joke. The books, brochures and grand plans of professional ecumenists and academics of that period now gather dust on forgotten library shelves. The end-game is here.
…
In turn, the Orthodox Church is now beginning, phoenix-like, to free itself, rising from beneath the ashes of the fires of the most terrible persecutions of Christianity ever seen, those under Communism in Eastern Europe and Russia. It is our belief that Her millions of New Martyrs and Confessors there, so far ignored by the Western world which is still in the clutches of its self-admiring consumerist frenzy, have not yet been heard by History. And it is the words of these Martyrs of the last century which will yet shape the end of Western history that is now coming, as surely as it was the words of the Martyrs of the first centuries which shaped the beginning of Western history.

Still all the “re-union” stuff comes down to is an attempt to have the cake and eat it too. It cannot be done on an institutional level. All that can be accomplished there is a bit of relaxation of some of the animosity. Although it can just as easily stir it up again.

Thanks for getting us closer. I was able to find the original document. It turns out that ZENIT misquoted Cardinal Kasper. Interesting how much can turn on the word “an.” This is what the Cardinal really said…

A third element (of an already changed ecumenical situation) is the inner differentiation within the great confessional world families. The Pontifical Council decided right at the beginning of the ecumenical movement to engage in dialogues with all the Orthodox churches together…

This perspective leads to a consideration of the increasing awareness of the fact that the Orthodox church does not really exist. There are autocephalous Orthodox churches which are often jealous of their independence and live in tension with their own sister churches. Constantinople at this moment seems no longer to be able to integrate the different autocephalous Orthodox churches, and its primacy of honour is questioned especially by Moscow…

In what way do the Cardinals actual words show a lack of understanding of Orthodoxy?

~ Don’t the various Orthodox Churches often live in tension with each other?
~ Doesn’t the EP see it as his responsibility to keep the Churches together?
~ Hasn’t Third Rome questioned the primacy of the EP for centuries?

Source: Present Situation and Future of the Ecumenical Movement. PLENARY 2001. November 12-17, 2001

In context of the more complete article that Eliot linked to, it is even worse.

The article quotes the Cardinal,

“He continues: “With Moscow, dialogue at the universal level at present is very difficult; the situation is improving with Greece; in the Middle East, in the territory of the ancient See of Antioch, the situation is completely different and there already is almost full communion.”

Oh really?

I googled myself and I found this:
The Crisis of Ecumenism, According to Cardinal Kasper
A Delicate Project “Totally Different from Relativism”
ROME, MARCH 7, 2002 (Zenit.org).
http://www.zenit.org/article-3885?l=english

I wonder about the full context of his remarks. The source document does not give any clue as to where the statement came from. Pulling one sentence out of a speech and then running with it is, to say the least, poor journalism. I searched Vatican.va, Zenit, and the web for the source, but found nothing.

“I’m ready now,” said Pope Shenouda, “now tell me, which one of the 15 heads of the Orthodox should I call?”

Any of them. All of them. One of them. Any bishop (as Michael pointed out).

It’s just a canard. Unless and until Roman Catholics or Oriental Orthodox are willing to admit that their faith has strayed from the truth, they cannot be reconciled. Until they admit this to themselves, they do not really want to be reconciled.

And it would be much better if we did not waste time on such nonsense.

So it should be for each and every person who wants to be part of the Church. We are not ‘re-uniting’. The opportunity for that with the Copts passed 1600 years ago. With Rome over 1000 years ago. We are talking now about simply becoming Orthodox, being received into the Church.

The Church is and always has been open to anyone who wants to be part of her. Trouble is they want to be ‘Orthodox’ without changing anything, without repentance, without confession and without having to give up power and position.

If the Pope or Cardinal Kaspar do not want to be part of the Church, fine, that’s up to them. However, if they want to work with us in any meaningful way its going to take a lot more person to person contact than they anticipated.

Or, perhaps the Cardinal simply selected the wrong choice of words. I was told a story sometime ago about Pope Shenouda which translated into essentially the same thing.

A few years back, an Orthodox bishop met Pope Shenouda at a meeting, and asked him, “When are we going to re-unite?”

“I’m ready now,” said Pope Shenouda, “now tell me, which one of the 15 heads of the Orthodox should I call?”

I’m paraphrasing, of course, but the sentiments were identical to those communicated by the Cardinal.

Best Regards,
Dean