Pope Benedict pledges to mend Orthodox rift

Ha, that Benedict. Such an ultra-conservative hard-liner. He's so conservative he wants to take us back 1,000 years!

Is he just an ultra-conservative now?

I thought he was an ultra-arch-conservative. Was I misinformed?

I think he is known officially now as and arch ultra montaigne mega traditionist inquisitor pan-phobic super duper duper really big fascist type aids spreading uber transcendental paleolithic conservative.

I could be wrong about that, but I get that impression whenever he's brought up in the news.

He's so conservative I'm actually surprised he can move at all. Why was he travelling anyway? That seems very progressive and out of character.

Next thing you know he'll be reading, listening to the radio, watching television. Oh my goodness! What if he uses a fax machine!

This guy is out of control already.

Yes, this man is clearly dangerous, just like all the liberals say. LOL

Brad, that's hilarious.

I heard he likes cats.
How can he be God's Rotweiller AND like kitty cats too?
That would make him pretty ecumenical, wouldn't it?
He's been called the German Shepherd, and I think Fr. Reese called him more of a Cocker Spaniel.

I myself am a Golden Retriever and Border Collie mix, given my vocation.

Motherhood.

JP II once said, "The Church needs to breathe with both lungs." Here's hoping the Eastern one will aid in healing the Western one of the ills it seems to have developed, in terms of liturgical abuses and doctrinal dissent. We truly need to be "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic."

I wonder how he will deal with the Orthodox Churches acceptance of contraception.....

I wonder how he will deal with the Orthodox Churches acceptance of contraception.....

I should think that would be much less of a stumbling block that Papal primacy and infallibility (at least on the level of official teaching, if not on the level of practice on the ground - what else is new?). After all, the Orthodox have only accepted contraception in the last thirty or forty years, so taking up the Catholic position would really be taking up their own tradition that they held for 95+% of their existence. I've also heard that not all their Churches accept contraception even now, though of that I am not completely certain.

Dangerous, traditional, ultra conservative....ooooooh, just the way I like my Popes. Go Benny, go Benny, go Benny.....

Just kidding. Pope Benedict is just the kind of Pope I was praying for. I'm just waiting to hear and see where he takes us. There are those who are afraid of this, but for me it will be a breath of fresh, orthodox, air.

If he did succeed in establishing some sort of reunion with an Eastern Heterodox establishment, the vast majority of the clergy and membership would immediately split off and form another church. That's the trouble with schism: once you assert that it can ever be right, there's no stopping other people from doing it. That's why I say this whole thing is a complete waste of time. Eastern Heterodoxy, with schism, divorce, and contraception: Protestants in funny hats.

In knowing that John Paul II tried to bring the Eastern Orthodox to the table repeatedly with little or no interest on the the Easterns part, having Benedict XVI incourage them to once again think about coming together in dialog is a "one more time" effort on Benedicts part. I don't think you'll see this offer again if the Eastern show the same interest as they did with John Paul. I think Benedict is getting his ducks in a row, and if the Eastern Orthodox decline, again, then they won't be asked to come to the table again unless it is they who request dialog. I really hope the Eastern see the vatican's willingness to talk as "wanting" a reunion with them. They could be the needed mortar for the Church's foundation.

If the Eastern churches are willing to accept Roman authority, drop their heterodox teachings (especially their rejection of filioque), reject divorce and contraception, and quit moping about how put-upon they are, well and good. We don't need them or anybody else to shore up the Church's foundation when we have Our Lord's promise on that point, but if they will make the necessary concessions we'll take them back. They won't, however, because they'd rather be fried in a wok than submit to Rome. I hope Lucy is right that this degrading appeal won't be repeated. I dislike seeing the Vicar of Christ going in supplication to a bunch of schismatics, and I resent being conscripted to play even the most remote role in this. The Eastern churches are the Faith's neurotic ex-girlfriend: they like to think that we're simply pining for them, and that they can keep us dangling in hungry frustration. Put a sock in it, is my view.

The Eastern Orthodox are not heterodox. We Catholics are. There is no such thing as papal primacy, not even in Scripture. Don't even go down the road of "the rock." The only head of a true Christian Church is Christ Himself. The filoque is a very late addition to the creed and was added as a response to a heresy that popped up in Spain (read your history). The original Nicene Creed did not contain the filoque phrase. Rome was schismatic, not the East. Rome needs to make amends. In fact, both sides need to make amends to each other. Papal primacy grew out of power-hungry popes who liked to party, have orgies, keep homosexual lovers, and even had children. This concept grew out of men who wanted to be the supreme rulers of the world and have all leaders answer to him. The original format of the Church had all bishops, including patriarchs (which the pope is), as equals. The differences were only administrative. Rome had some final judiciary responsibilities, but that was because Elder Rome was given honor (not primacy or supremacy) among equals since it was the original capital of the Roman Empire. I, for one, look forward to the day when the 4 Churches of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, and Rome are reunited as one body in Christ.

A Roman Catholic Who Has Seen the Light

Regardless, Christ established his church upon the rock Peter, (yes I'm going down that "rock"-y road) making him the head of Christ's church, and that position his vicar. In my book, that makes him captain of the ship. Regardless of what the popes of the past have done. The Pope is to be looked upon as our Holy Leader, and for the rest of the world to pay heed to his words.

I expect he will try to mollify them by denying the filioque, considering his view of Christ as expressed in his book The Christian Faith, Yesterday and Today. That's just my guess.

I am a new Catholic, having recently begun my conversion process from (gasp!) protestant evangelicalism. My understanding of the history of Papal authority and claim to primacy is missing quite a few details between Peter and the current Benedict. So far, I can see that one role of the Pope is that of chief servant to the Church, but of course also necessarily one of authority. All systems of authority out of necessity entail a chain of command and heirarchical structure do they not? Perhaps in the early days, when Christianity was highly regional and new, shared power between bishops was possible. But with the spread of christianity to different cultures and languages, is not the desire for a more concentrated authority natural, according to the needs of a world-wide church, and even ultimately neccessary for maintaining unity? The fact that papal primacy is not explicitely spelled out in the NT surely isn't a good enough reason to deny the expediancy thereof. Is is not within the idiom of the apostolic teaching, considering the tremendous importance on unity on the Body Of Christ as expresses by Jesus and the NT writers?

I don't think Byron Hagan knows what he's talking about!

I agree with Messy Atti. I also agree with "I've seen the light"