Nevertheless, save for those who were lost in past memories of flower children and the Summer of Love, the meeting and joint declaration were nothing over which to rejoice. Ecumenical meetings between popes and non-Catholic leaders have hardly been a novelty since the Council; the Conciliar popes have seemed to relish humiliating the Roman Papacy in the name of brotherly love- whether due to a misguided sense of brotherhood or an abhorrence of Roman triumphalism, or both, must be left up to the guess of the reader. In any case, this meeting was symbolic and significant. For those with an acquaintance of Kirill's past, his presence on Cuban soil was indicative. The Patriarch, as a priest was closely involved with the KGB. According to an important defector from the Soviet bloc, he had been an apostle of Liberation theology, that marxist imitation of Christianity that came to demolish the Faith of so many Catholics in Latin America. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has made it clear how much he admired one of his communist professors in University, and a book has been written concerning his successful harbouring of Communists fleeing from the persecution of the Argentine authorities. Cuba was indeed a fitting place for such a meeting. This was not lost on either one, since the following claim is made on Cuba's behalf:
"Our fraternal meeting has taken place in Cuba, at the crossroads of North and South, East and West. It is from this island, the symbol of the hopes of the “New World” and the dramatic events of the history of the twentieth century, that we address our words to all the peoples of Latin America and of the other continents."
One is not sure how Cuba is the symbol of the hopes of the "New World", an island dominated by Communism since the revolution of Fidel Castro. Certainly Cuba has never been the great light of hope. Even in the Spanish Empire, Cuba, while important, was dwarfed by the Viceroyalty of New Spain centred in Mexico. Only for the Soviet Union was Cuba a beacon of hope, for it was the Soviet toehold in the Western Hemisphere.
As outrageous as this flowery language might be, the next paragraph is worse. Latin America's religiosity is praised as the pledge of future glory. Given that millions upon million of Catholics have left the Church in order to join heretical sects, so many in fact that Catholics no longer make up the majority of several Latin American nations, this hope is scandalous. It is only a fitting foundation of the betrayal to come in the rest of the Declaration.
Heresy looms its ugly head in the fourth paragraph. It is claimed that both Catholics and Orthodox profess the Faith of the first Millennium:
"We share the same spiritual Tradition of the first millennium of Christianity. The witnesses of this Tradition are the Most Holy Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, and the saints we venerate. Among them are innumerable martyrs who have given witness to their faithfulness to Christ and have become the 'seed of Christians'".
How can two opposing versions of Christianity share the same Tradition? Is not the primacy of the pope part of the Deposit of Faith? And what of the Mother of God? Is she looking on as a witness, or is the Catholic and Orthodox veneration of her the same? Did Rome renounce the Immaculate Conception or Moscow suddenly convert to it? What of the nature of marriage? is it indissoluble or not? What of the Filioque of the Creed? Given the next paragraph, one is left wondering why there is any division in the first place...
"Notwithstanding this shared Tradition of the first ten centuries, for nearly one thousand years Catholics and Orthodox have been deprived of communion in the Eucharist. We have been divided by wounds caused by old and recent conflicts, by differences inherited from our ancestors, in the understanding and expression of our faith in God, one in three Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are pained by the loss of unity, the outcome of human weakness and of sin, which has occurred despite the priestly prayer of Christ the Saviour: 'So that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you … so that they may be one, as we are one” (Jn 17:21).'"
So, the Faith was the same. The whole problem is to be blamed on the politics of our ancestors. it is likewise obvious that to these two, Christ's priestly prayer has gone unanswered. The unity of the Church was lost because of human weakness and sin. A very serious phrase has been included which is meant to explain how these two "Churches" while believing the same, have excluded one another from participation in the Holy Eucharist. The difference lies in the "understanding and expression" of the Faith. The Faith is the same, its expression differs. Even a divergence in the understanding of the Faith does not prevent one from sharing the same Faith. This common Faith, professed in a plurality of ways, will be the basis for the idea of a common evangelization.
It is obvious that an indispensable answer to the disunity of Christians will be found in "dialogue", that incessant process of always learning and never teaching: "Interreligious dialogue is indispensable in our disturbing times. Differences in the understanding of religious truths must not impede people of different faiths to live in peace and harmony. In our current context, religious leaders have the particular responsibility to educate their faithful in a spirit which is respectful of the convictions of those belonging to other religious traditions. Attempts to justify criminal acts with religious slogans are altogether unacceptable. No crime may be committed in God’s name, 'since God is not the God of disorder but of peace' (1 Cor 14:33)." While it might seem good to remind the world that the followers of Christ are law abiding and therefore do not engage in criminal activity, there is a lack of clarity here as well. Totalitarian regimes of one kind or another have not failed to criminalize religious activity, and in this age the danger of such false laws against the Faith is not small. Is it a crime to obey God rather than men? If one means the Divine Law, one can never act against it; but if it is a question of an unjust law of the State, such resistance can become a duty. The presence of relativism in the question of dialogue itself cannot go unnoticed. The difference in religions is in the understanding of religious truths, not in the presence of falsehood in the very doctrines of the religions themselves.
The madness of claiming that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are actually the same religion, divided only by misunderstandings arising from a different mode of expression in confessing the same truth finds a place in the Declaration by the idea of a common evangelization: "Orthodox and Catholics are united not only by the shared Tradition of the Church of the first millennium, but also by the mission to preach the Gospel of Christ in the world today. This mission entails mutual respect for members of the Christian communities and excludes any form of proselytism." So now both have a Divine mission to preach the Gospel. What a mockery of those saints who died rather than deny the pope's primacy of jurisdiction over the Church! This common mission can only be possible if, in fact, the Catholics and Orthodox both are members of the One Church of Christ, for there can be no Divine mission granted to heretics or schismatics to propagate their false religions. There is no other possibility for such a double mission save that of being members of the Same Church. While this document does not make such a claim overtly and clearly, the Declaration can only be read in such a light. This alone makes it savour of heresy, if nothing else does. Yet this is the symbolic meaning of the brotherly meeting. One does not meet and sign agreements with one's enemies. Proselytism is forbidden, for why should any strive to convert the Orthodox to Catholicism if both are members of the same Church? No wonder there is such a point of emphasizing the prayer of Christ that there be unity; the One Church stands divided.
Not all of the Declaration is made of such nonsense. There is a reminder of the persecution of Christians in the Mideast; there is a reminder of the evil of abortion and false ideas concerning the family. But the central theme is clear: neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox "Church" can claim to be the One Church of Christ. While both share the same Faith, historical accidents blamed on past misunderstandings keep them apart. The push towards a future unified Church, in the hands of those tarnished with past sympathies to Communism, goes forward. The Pope proceeded on from his meeting to visit Mexico, and while there, could not resist kneeling at the tomb of a bishop well know for his sympathy for Liberation Theology, the Communization of Christianity. let us pray that the Successor of Saint Peter be delivered from the bonds of his Modernism.
No comments:
Post a Comment