Notice that although MP Bp. Hilarion refutes papal ecclesiology, he says little to nothing about the multitude of other heresies embraced by the Roman Catholic church, and speaks of the Pope as if he were a valid bishop.
http://www.catholic .org/featured/ headline. php?ID=3781
A Russian Orthodox View of Papacy, and More (Part 1)
11/8/2006 - 6:00 AM PST
Interview With Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev
VIENNA, Austria, NOV. 8, 2006 (Zenit) - Dialogue between Catholics
and Orthodox can be fruitful, though many hurdles still exist on the
road to Eucharistic communion, says a leading prelate.
Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna and Austria, representative of the
Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions, commented in
this interview on Benedict XVI's forthcoming visit to Turkey, as well
as on other topics.
Part 2 of this interview will appear Thursday.
Q: Soon Pope Benedict XVI will visit Turkey, because he wants to
strengthen the bonds between Rome and Constantinople. What is the
significance of this journey as to the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue?
Bishop Alfeyev: It is to be hoped that this visit will further
improve the relations between the Churches of Rome and
Constantinople. These two churches broke communion with one another
in 1054, therefore it makes them especially responsible to restore
unity.
In speaking about the possible impact of this meeting on
Orthodox-Catholic relations as a whole, one should remember that the
Orthodox Church, insofar as its structure is concerned, is
significantly different from the Roman Catholic Church.
The Orthodox Church has no single primate. It consists of 15
autocephalous churches, each headed by its own patriarch, archbishop
or metropolitan.
In this family of Churches the patriarch of Constantinople is "primus
inter pares," but his primacy is that of honor, not of jurisdiction,
since he has no ecclesial authority over the other Churches. When,
therefore, he is presented as the "head" of the Orthodox Church
worldwide, it is misleading. It is equally misleading when his
meeting with the Pope of Rome is considered to be a meeting of the
heads of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.
Historically, until the schism of 1054, it was the Bishop of Rome who
enjoyed a position of primacy among the heads of the Christian
Churches. The canons of the Eastern Church -- in particular, the
famous 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon -- ascribe the second,
not the first place, to the patriarch of Constantinople.
Moreover, the ground on which this second place was granted to the
patriarch of Constantinople was purely political: Once Constantinople
became "the second Rome," capital of the Roman -- Byzantine --
Empire, it was considered that the bishop of Constantinople should
occupy the second seat after the Bishop of Rome.
After the breach of communion between Rome and Constantinople, the
primacy in the Eastern Orthodox family was shifted to the "second in
line," i.e., the patriarch of Constantinople. Thus it was by
historical accident that he became "primus inter pares" for the
Eastern part of the world Christendom.
I believe that, alongside with contacts with the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, it is equally important for the Roman Catholic Church
to develop bilateral relations with other Orthodox Churches, notably
with the Russian Orthodox Church. The latter, being the second
largest Christian Church in the world -- its membership comprises
some 160 million believers worldwide -- is eager to develop such
relations, especially in the field of common Christian witness to
secularized society.
Q: Do you think that this journey will open new horizons for the
talks between the Christian and the Muslim worlds?
Bishop Alfeyev: Dialogue between Christians and Muslims is necessary
and timely. It is quite unfortunate that some attempts by Christian
leaders to encourage this dialogue have been misinterpreted by
certain representatives of the Muslim world.
The recent controversy over Pope Benedict XVI's academic lecture in
Regensburg is a vivid example of such a misinterpretation. The
aggressive reaction of a number of Muslim politicians, as well as of
many ordinary followers of Islam, has been regarded by some observers
as overly exaggerated.
Some analysts asked: Are we not moving toward a world dictatorship of
Muslim ideology, when every critical observation of Islam -- even
within the framework of an academic lecture -- is brutally and
aggressively opposed, while criticism of other religions, especially
Christianity, is permitted and encouraged?
I should add, perhaps, that several theologians of the Russian
Orthodox Church, even those normally critical of the Roman Catholic
Church, expressed their support for Pope Benedict XVI when the
controversy over his Regensburg lecture broke out. They felt that
what he said was important, although, indeed, it was not quite in
tune with modern unwritten rules of political correctness.
Q: The Pope did away with the title "Patriarch of the Occident." What
does this gesture mean? Is there any ecumenical meaning to it?
Bishop Alfeyev: Well, I was the first Orthodox hierarch that happened
to comment on this gesture. Several weeks later, official comments
were also made by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople.
In my remarks I argued that repudiation of the title "Patriarch of
the Occident" is likely to be considered by the Orthodox as
confirming the claim, reflected in the pope's other titles, to
universal Church jurisdiction.
Among the many designations of the Pontiff, that of "Bishop of Rome"
remains the most acceptable for the Orthodox Churches, since it
points to the Pope's role as diocesan bishop of the city of Rome.
A title such as "Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province"
shows that the Pope's jurisdiction includes not only the city of
Rome, but also the province.
"Primate of Italy" indicates that the Bishop of Rome is "first among
equals" among the bishops of Italy, i.e., using Orthodox language,
primate of a local Church. Following this understanding, none of the
three titles would pose a problem for the Orthodox in the event of a
re-establishment of Eucharistic communion between East and West.
The main obstacle to ecclesial unity between East and West, according
to many Orthodox theologians, is the teaching on the universal
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Within this context --
unacceptable and even scandalous, from the Orthodox point of view --
are precisely those titles that remain in the list, such as Vicar of
Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme
Pontiff of the Universal Church.
According to Orthodox teaching, Christ has no "vicar" to govern the
universal Church in his name.
The title "Successor of the Prince of the Apostles" refers to the
Roman Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter which, when passed on
to the Bishop of Rome, secured for him governance over the universal
Church. This teaching has been criticized in Orthodox polemical
literature from Byzantine time onward.
The title "Supreme Pontiff" -- "Pontifex Maximus" -- originally
belonged to the pagan emperors of ancient Rome. It was not rejected
by the Emperor Constantine when he converted to Christianity.
With respect to the Pope of Rome, "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal
Church" is a designation that points to the Pope's universal
jurisdiction -- a level of authority which is not recognized by the
Orthodox Churches. It is precisely this title that should have been
dropped first, had the move been motivated by the quest for
"ecumenical progress" and desire for the amelioration of
Catholic-Orthodox relations.
http://www.theindia ncatholic. com/newsread. asp?nid=4348
November 8,2006
A Russian orthodox view of Papacy, and more (Part 2)
VATICAN CITY (Zenit.org) -- Here is the address Benedict XVI
delivered to the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the
occasion of their plenary assembly being held in Rome.
Part 1 of this interview appeared on Monday.
Q: Benedict XVI is looking for the "full and visible unity" of all
Christians -- a unity which man cannot "create," but which he may
encourage, through his own conversion, through concrete gestures and
an open dialogue about fundamental topics. On the basis of which
topics can Orthodoxy and Rome strengthen their bonds? How should they
be put into praxis?
Bishop Alfeyev: I believe, first of all, that it is necessary to
identify several levels of collaboration and then to work for better
understanding at each level.
One level relates to the theological conversations that are pursued
by the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Commission. These conversations are
and will be focused on the dogmatic and ecclesiological disparities
between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church.
At this level I can predict many years of exhaustive and difficult
work, especially when we come to the issue of universal primacy.
Complications will arise not only because of the very different
understanding of primacy between the Catholic and Orthodox
traditions, but also from the fact that there is no unanimous
understanding of universal primacy among the Orthodox themselves.
This fact already became evident during the recent session of the
Commission in Belgrade, and the internal disagreement within the
family of the Orthodox Churches on this particular issue will be
manifested in ways more acute and striking in the future. Thus, a
long and thorny path lies ahead.
There is, however, another level to which we should set our sights,
and here I mean not so much what divides as what unites us. To be
specific, this is the level of cooperation in the field of Christian
mission.
Personally, I believe that it is quite premature and unrealistic to
expect restoration of full Eucharistic communion between East and
West in the foreseeable future. Nothing, however, prevents us, both
Catholics and Orthodox, from witnessing Christ and his Gospel
together to the modern world. We may not be united administratively
or ecclesiastically, but we must learn to be partners and allies in
the face of common challenges: militant secularism, relativism,
atheism, or a militant Islam.
It is for this reason that, since the election of Pope Benedict XVI,
I have repeatedly called for the fostering of ties between the
Catholics and the Orthodox Churches through the creation of a
strategic alliance for the defense of Christian values in Europe.
Neither the word "strategic" nor "alliance" has so far been commonly
accepted to describe a collaboration such as this.
For me, it is not words that matter but rather the connotation behind
them. I used the word "alliance" not in the sense of a "Holy
Alliance," but rather as it is employed for "The World Alliance of
Reformed Churches," i.e., as a term designating collaboration and
partnership without full administrative or ecclesial unity.
I also wanted to avoid pointedly ecclesial terms such as "union,"
because they will remind the Orthodox of Ferrara-Florence and other
similar unfortunate attempts at achieving ecclesial unity without
full doctrinal agreement.
Neither an ecclesial "union" nor a hasty doctrinal compromise is
needed now, but rather a "strategic" cooperation in the sense of
developing a common strategy to combat all the challenges of
modernity.
The rationale behind my proposal is this: Our churches are on their
way to unity, but one has to be pragmatic and recognize that it will
probably take decades, if not centuries, before unity is restored.
In the meantime we desperately need to address the world with a
united voice. Without being one Church, could we not act as one
Church? Could we not present ourselves to secular society as a
unified body?
I strongly believe that it is possible for the two Churches to speak
with one voice; there can be a united Catholic-Orthodox response to
the challenges of secularism, liberalism and relativism. Also in the
dialogue with Islam, Catholics and Orthodox can act together.
I should add that any rapprochement between Catholics and Orthodox
will in no way undermine those existing mechanisms of ecumenical
cooperation that include also Anglicans and Protestants, such as the
World Council of Churches and the Conference of European Churches.
However, in the struggle against secularism, liberalism and
relativism, as well as in the defense of traditional Christian
values, the Roman Catholic Church takes a much more uncompromising
stand than many Protestants. In doing so it distances itself from
those Protestants whose positions are more in tune with modern
developments.
The recent liberalization of doctrine and morality in many Protestant
communities, as well as within the Anglican Church, makes cooperation
between them and the Churches of Tradition, to which belong both the
Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, ever more difficult.
Yet another level of Catholic-Orthodox cooperation would be that of
cultural exchange between the representatives of the two Churches.
Many misunderstandings that exist between us have a purely cultural
origin.
Better knowledge of each other's cultural heritage would definitely
foster our rapprochement. Icon exhibitions, choir concerts, joint
literary projects, various conferences on cultural subjects -- all
this can help us overcome centuries-old prejudices and better
understand each other's traditions.
Q: In his letter to the Pope on February 22, the patriarch of Moscow
mentions some challenges of the modern world, which should be solved
together, and his deep wish to bring back Christian values to
society. How can forces be joined, so that the dangers of
materialism, consumerism, agnosticism, secularism and relativism
could be overcome?
Bishop Alfeyev: These questions were raised during the conference
"Giving a Soul to Europe" that took place in Vienna on May 3-5, 2006.
The conference was organized jointly by the Pontifical Council for
Culture and the Department for External Church Relations of the
Moscow Patriarchate.
Some 50 participants representing the Roman Catholic and the Russian
Orthodox Churches gathered together in order to ponder on the
challenges facing Christianity in Europe and to develop ways of
collaboration in facing them.
It is precisely materialism, consumerism, agnosticism, secularism and
relativism, all based on liberal humanist ideology, that constitute a
real challenge to Christianity. And it is this liberal humanist
ideology that we must counteract if we wish to preserve traditional
values for ourselves and for our future generations.
Today Western liberal humanist ideology, standing on the platform of
its own, self-made universality, imposes itself on people who have
been raised in other spiritual and moral traditions and have
different value systems. These people see in the total dictate of
Western ideology a threat to their identity.
The evidently anti-religious character of modern liberal humanism
brings about non-acceptance and rejection by those whose behavior is
religiously motivated and whose spiritual life is founded on
religious experience.
There exist several variations on the religious response to the
challenges of totalitarian liberalism and militant secularism. The
most radical answer has been given by Islamic extremists, who have
declared jihad against "post-Christian" Western civilization with all
of its so-called common human values.
The phenomenon of Islamic terrorism cannot be understood without full
appreciation of the reaction that has arisen in the contemporary
Islamic world as a result of attempts in the West to impose its
worldview and behavioral standards on it.
So long as the secularized West continues to lay claim to a worldwide
monopoly on worldviews, propagating its standards as being without
alternative and obligatory for all nations, the sword of Damocles of
terrorism will continue to hang above the whole of Western
civilization.
Another variation on the religious response to the challenge of
secularism is the attempt that is being made to adapt religion
itself, including its doctrine and morals, to modern liberal
standards.
Some Protestant communities have already gone down this path by
having instilled liberal standards into their teaching and church
practice over the course of several decades. The result of this
process has been an erosion of the dogmatic and moral foundations of
Christianity, with priests being allowed to justify or conduct
"same-sex marriages," members of the clergy themselves entering into
such liaisons, and theologians rewriting the Bible and creating
countless versions of politically correct Christianity oriented
toward liberal values.
Finally, the third variation on the religious response to secularism
is the attempt to enter into a peaceful, non-aggressive dialogue with
it, with the aim of achieving a balance between the
liberal-democratic model of Western societal structure and the
religious way of life. Such a path has been chosen by Christian
Churches that have remained faithful to tradition, namely the Roman
Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Today both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have the
capability to conduct dialogue with secularized society at a high
intellectual level. In the social doctrines of both Churches, the
problems concerning dialogue with secular humanism on the matter of
values have been profoundly examined from all angles.
The Roman Catholic Church has dealt with these questions in many
documents of the magisterium, the most recent of which being the
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, compiled by the
Pontifical Commission "Justitia et Pax" and published in 2004.
In the Orthodox tradition the most significant document of this kind
is the "Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,"
published in 2000.
Both documents promote the priority of religious values over the
interests of secular life. In opposing atheist humanism, they foster
instead a humanism guided by spiritual values.
By this is meant a humanism "that is up to the standards of God's
plan of love in history," an "integral humanism capable of creating a
new social, economic and political order, founded on the dignity and
freedom of every human person, to be brought about in peace, justice
and solidarity."
Comparison between the two documents reveals striking similarities in
the social doctrines of the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.
If our understanding of social issues is so similar, why can we not
join forces in order to defend it?
I believe the time has come for all Christians who choose to follow
the traditional line, notably the Catholics and the Orthodox, to form
a common front in order to combat secularism and relativism, to
conduct responsible dialogue with Islam and the other major world
religions, and to defend Christian values against all challenges of
modernity. In 20, 30 or 40 years it may simply be too late.
.,._
