Rorate Caeli

If not Ecône..., Constantinople?...

Some interesting words from an exclusive interview of Patriarch Bartholomeos with the semi-official daily of the Italian Episcopal Conference, Avvenire:

This morning's speeches and the joint declaration that you have undersigned sounded "lofty" and certainly promising. You have even spoken of the future, regarding the [future] steps?

Regarding this, I can say that I have spoken to His Holiness about something, something we can do. I have made him an offer about which I cannot yet talk, while we wait for an official response in this sense; however, I can say that His Holiness displayed great interest and welcomed the offer favorably. We hope that it can be accomplished, because it truly follows the prospects of that ecumenical progress which, as we have affirmed and even written in the Joint Declaration, we both are determined to pursue.

13 comments:

Guadalupe Guard said...

What does it profit a pope to lose one's soul for Istanbul? I pray that's not the case. (Maybe the loss of some honor but not the soul).

Cerimoniere said...

Maybe this is about the universal indult too! Perhaps Bartholomew wants it as much as we do, so he doesn't have to suffer the embarrassment of pretending to take the modern liturgy seriously...

Mercurius said...

The direct control of the Pope on the election and consecration of bishops, the various liturgical laws and regulations and so forth are his right and duty as Patriarch of 'the latins'.

For the last 1000 years, the role of the Bishop of Rome as 'Vicar of Christ' and as 'Patriarch of the West' became indistinguishable since there were no ancient eastern churches in communion with the See of Rome for hundreds of years.

What the eastern churches (especially the Patriarcates) deserve is their legitimate independence in government but in matters which affect the whole Church then the Bishop of 'elder' Rome would have the FINAL say. Rome has Spoken. This is especially true in case of division or conflict between chrurches regarding different matters; the Pope would be the final arbiter.

This does not reduce the power of the Pope in the West but extends it - in a traditional way - to the East.

Michael said...

BXVI should replace the Novus Ordo with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, while still making the TLM universally available. Two birds, one stone, less modernism.

Bare Ruin'd Choirs said...

Actually, Michael, introducing the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Latin Church strikes me as the very essence of modernism.

Ad Orientem said...

Michael,
While I appreciate the obvious compliment to our liturgical tradition, your suggestion is a very very bad idea. It would an attempt to do the West what the Roman Church has long attempted to do to the Eastern Churches. Namely to subvert the local and legitimately developed rite in favor of a foreign one. The Byzantine Rite is one that carries with it its own peculiar spirituality that is alien to that of the Latin West. Far better that the West restore its own liturgical traditions than try to import one from the East. This is not a blanket endorsement of the 1962 Missal. The fathers of V-II were correct that the Roman Rite had become cumbersome and top heavy over the course of centuries of add ons. It needed some tweeking and a little trimming. But it certainly did not warrant being overthrown in favor of some weird quasi Protestant liturgy cooked up by a committee of highly dubious characters.

My ideas for the sort of reform that I think would have been authentic and in keeping with the Western Tradition would have been...

1. Reform the calendar of saints and restore a unified Paschalion so both East & West celebrate the resurrection on the same day.

2. Trim some of the add ons that started to clutter the Roman Rite beginning in the late Middle Ages (i.e. the Last Gospel and the prayers ordered by Leo XIII), or at least reserve them for Hierarchical Liturgies.

3. Allow the first part of the Mass to be said either Ad Populum or Ad Orientem with the option of vernacular, while preserving the Canon unaltered, in Latin and always said Ad Orientem.

4. Restore communion under both species (one of the few reforms of the Roman Rite I actually agree with).

5. Reform the readings.

Beyond these things I think it is imprudent to tamper excessively with a long established liturgical rite. Of course I am Orthodox and that by its very nature makes me suspicious of innovation.

MacK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MacK said...

One factor is certain, such announcements will set yet another cascade of rumours and counter-rumours for the susceptible to quibble and compete over. This is becoming quite a trend since last year.

Furthermore, we ought not over-exaggerate the amount of "control" contemporary papacies have over anyone or anything among "the latins" - who actually are mostly "latinless", if this had not been noticed.

Hebdomadary said...

Relative to Michael's observation about replacing the NO with the DivLit , one has to wonder if possibly there weren't just as many Vatnik Modernists who didn't want the Holy Father to meet with Bartholomew as there were Mohammedan Militants. Hmmmm.

Janice said...

This has nothing to do with the universal indult. It's about Bartholomew and Benedict meeting in Ravenna for ecumenical talks and the Pope hasn't yet signed on fully (he approved it "in principle").

Cerimoniere said...

My comment was intended to be a mild satire on indult fever, Janice. We are all so excited about it, we see traces of it everywhere. Joining the good Patriarch in our concerns struck me as amusing, though it is, of course, true that many Orthodox are scandalized by the new liturgy.

Dust I Am said...

Perhaps Bertholomew will be invited to vote in the next Papal election. In return, the Pope is acknowledged to have veto power over selection of Orthodox bishops. What say all of you?

Athanasius said...

This is all nice, but at the end of the day it will never work. It is possible that Bartholomew might accept Catholic Doctrine, but certainly not the Russian Patriarch Alexi II. Don't forget, Catholic doctrine is not merely that the Pope is the first among equals, but that he is the supreme head of the Universal Church. By Tradition the Pope does not interfere directly with Eastern sacraments and law, and should not as a pastoral principle. However as a doctrinal article, he most certainly can.

Is that what the Greek Patriarch is saying he agrees to? I highly doubt it.