Greeting of the Holy Father to the Delegation from the Patriarchate of Moscow (Audience, 30 May 2018), 02.06.2018

The following is the greeting the Holy Father Francis addressed to the delegation from the Patriarchate of Moscow, whom he received in the study of the Paul VI Hall before the general audience on Wednesday 30 May:

Greeting of the Holy Father

Thank you so much for your visit, and also for this meeting, which helps us so much to live our faith in unity and in the hope to walk together. I am happy to take the road of unity with you: the only road that promises us something certain, because the path of division leads us to war and destruction. And before you I would like to reiterate – in a special way before you, my dear brother, and before all of you – that the Catholic Church will never allow an attitude of division to arise from her people. We will never allow ourselves to do this, I do not want it. In Moscow – in Russia – there is only one Patriarchate: yours. We will not have another one. And when some Catholic faithful, be they laypeople, priests or bishops, raise the banner of Uniatism, which does not work anymore, and is over, then it causes me pain. The Churches that are united in Rome must be respected, but Uniatism as a path of unity is not valid today. Instead it brings me comfort when I find this: the extended hand, the fraternal embrace, thinking together, and journeying. Ecumenism is made by journeying. We walk. Some think – but this is not right – that there must first be doctrinal agreement, on all the points of division, and then the journey. This does not work for ecumenism, because we do not know when agreement will come. I once heard a man of the Church, a man of God, who said: “I know which day a doctrinal agreement will be signed”. They asked him: “When?” – “The day after the coming of the glorious Christ”. We must continue to study theology, to clarify the points, but in the meantime let us walk together, let us not wait for these things to be resolved in order to walk, no. We journey together and also do this, but walking in love, in prayer; as in this example of the relics. Prayer together, for each other, in dialogue. This is so good. The meeting with His Holiness Kirill was very good for me, I found a brother. And now, spiritually, we walk together.

And a couple of words to finish. One on the respect of Catholics towards you, Russian Orthodox brothers: the Catholic Church, the Catholic Churches must not get involved in internal matters of the Russian Orthodox Church, nor in political issues. This is my attitude, and the attitude of the Holy See today. And those who meddle do not obey the Holy See. This regards politics. The second thing: piety. It is important that we pray for each other, also in personal prayer. We know new brothers and sisters, and then there is also personal prayer. I would like to say something to you: when we met with the Patriarch, afterwards he sent me a relic of Saint Seraphim. I keep that relic on my nightstand, and at night, before going to bed, and in the morning, when I get up, I venerate it and pray for our unity.

Thank you very much. Let us pray for each other. Let us bless each other. And let us go together. Thank you.

All the enthusiasts of Russia should learn a bit about the country, its history and current
ideology. Alexander Dugin is the main ideologist and one of the main advisers of Putin.

"In a nutshell, Alexander Dugin's entire ideology is a mixture of great chauvinism,
Eurasian imperialism, extreme anti-circumcision and traditionalism, integral to its most esoteric form, with elements of political machiavellianism and leftist social demagogy. ...

Their main idea is the theory of fighting of two civilizations as the driving force of
modern history: Atlantic civilization - secular, rationalistic, commercialized and individualistic - clashes with Eurasian civilization: sacred, barbaric, spiritual and collectivist. The former is located in North America, the latter in Russia. Dugin
writes about the West that it is a geographical Antichrist, a dead land. Everything that damages the West is good. Hence Dugin's postulated alliance of Russia with the world of Islam, and above all with countries hostile to America. The same applies to Europe, where Russia should seek to cooperate with all anti-American forces and
combat states acting as agents of Washington's influence. According
to Dugin, only Russia is able to defend Europe against the hegemony
of aggressive America.

...

Dugin repeatedly paid tribute to Stalin, repeating that he was an eurasian manifestation of
his communist variant and that one of his most important actions was
the destruction of the Orthodox Church, which at the time was
strongly criminalised, i.e., imbued with the spirit of the West, and
the creation of a new Orthodox Church in its place, completely
subordinated to the communist regime, more popular and supposedly
much closer to the spirit of the nation. It could be said that the
folk monarch Stalin, with his popular faith or Communism, opposed the
alienated, Lord's, noble, criminalized monarchy and Orthodox Church."

It doesn't sound very catholic, does it? The source: Aeksander Dugin Mysli Polsce

May I propose this: Please get acquainted properly with Dugin's thinking. Even better if you know Russian. He is not a fool, he understands history better than many of the famous politological "experts" in the West. I think you are doing a great mistake seeing him only in the way you described. Btw, Australian New Age magazine "New Dawn" brings to the confused, culture-deprived young people interesting global perspectives, often referring to Dugin and other Russian thinkers in much more reality-close manner than your post above.

I expected
to read yet another article on Fatima and Russia adding perhaps one or two
new-old things and repeating the well-known. The beginning is really fine
reminding us about the evolving form of communism and the deeply worrying fact
that it starts to dominate the west, especially EU and US. It even mentions the
fact that the neo-cons are conservatives is a myth, and that they are rather
Trockists, thus pointing to the even more difficult situation.

But the
rest, let me say it directly, is deeply worrying, because it creates a new myth,
which is entirely wrong and dangerous. The author, as many in the west, are
looking for a hero, and a place from which the hero may come. And yet their found
it: the country is Russia, of course, and the big hero is Putin - the myth of
Russia as a Christian and freedom loving country. It even equates in a sense
Poland, a catholic country for centuries, with Russia. How natural and how cheap. In case of
difficult or seemingly hopeless situation, the creation of myths is psychologically
understandable, but it does not help to solve the problem, in contrary.

One has to
understand Russia, its history shaped by Mongols, by its own brutal rulers, by its
schismatic religion, by the communism and the current political elite which are
former KGBsts and comunists. It has nothing in common, or almost nothing, with
the myth propagated by some US intellectualists.
In contrary the myths are very similar to the ones from the soviet times, when
many western intellectuals considered communist Russia as the land of hope for
the humanity. The times are changing, the myths and ideologies are evolving, as
we see, but certain vectors remain the same, unfortunately.

It is not
an accident, that communism was installed first in Russia and that it dominated
it for 70 years. It was only possible due the brutality of the rulers, the
schismatic religion, the terrible nihilism dominating among Russian elites in
XIX century. And, nothing changed even after the fall of communism. Russia is relatively
strong in military terms, it can invade other countries, play political games, strengthen
its political influence, but it is a big nothing within, and this is the crucial
problem.

As a proof
of the big changes hoped for, he author mentions the number of churches build
in recent years, he mentions the fact that an abortion law was passed. That’s true,
but these facts should be properly interpreted. The churches build are not a
sign that Russians are converting, they are rather not. The churches were built
by the oligarchs and stay empty – it’s not a sign of conversion, isn’t it? Similarly
with the law on abortion ban, it was not a Russian initiative, but the result
of the tremendous efforts of Polish catholic priests and prolifers who persuaded
their orthodox counterparts and Russian politicians that abortion is killing
their country. I doubt that Russians consider abortion to be a sin and an evil
in itself.

I strongly
recommend getting known the country and politicians you are going to place your
hopes in. Myths are a way to nowhere. Look at the history of Russia, the brutal
Tartars, Ivan the Terrible, even the brutal Peter the “great”, the murdering of
czars, at Lenin, Trotcki.

I strongly
recommend reading the writing of Alexandr Dugin, Russia’s main idelogian, very
close to Putin, and one of the most influential persons shaping the Russian
long term strategy. He clearly states
that Russian ideology is based on Slavic ethnicity and on nihilism – how Russian.
He also very accurately characterises orthodoxy as not being really Christian,
as Catholicism, but rather being something only ritual and cultural – no believes,
no ethics.

It is fact
that the Holy Mother of God mentioned Russia. However, please note that She said
that it will convert. This meant that Russia needed to convert. An the Holy
Mother of God mentioned it before (sic!) the soviet revolution. It means that
the evils were already there, before the communism overwhelmed. Thus, Russia
needs the conversion now, as it needed during the communism rule and as it
needed before.

We should pray
for this conversion, pray that the holy father consecrates Russia to the
Immaculate Heart of Mary. Only after the conversion, the real one, which means
conversion to the catholic religion, Russia may help itself and other
countries. Otherwise, it will keep to spread its errors, as it did for
centuries and as it is doing even now.

@Brian, I guess, you
rather dislike what I said than disagree with my arguments, since the
image I paint does not fit into the myths that too many nourish in
relation to Russia and Putin and you do not point to flows in them.
Psychologically it understandable and this kind of attitude has been
repeated through the history again and again. My point is however,
that we should face the reality as as it is, not escape into dreams.

@ Kevin Kirwan, Well, your strong fillings are
understandable. Misled people in a difficult situation quite often,
when being told about unpleasant facts, turn against those, who explain the
situation, not the liars and oppressors. My comments on abortion are
based on the informations I have and I was not intending to mislead
anybody. Neither, I was going to promote private opinions of pope
Francis; nonetheless he is a pope and he can act as such. The remark
concerns the current pope as well as the future one or ones. Further
to Putin, he is a politician and may have said what you like to hear
- RT is portraying him as a "conservative", which is meant
for the frustrated conservatives in the West. However, he never ever
really condemned communism; in contrary, he equated it in a way with
Christianity in a televised speech mean for the Russians.

Let me point you to the source of my information: it is the Human Life International, a Polish organization involved in the protection of life in Russia and
other post communist countries. The have done over the years an
excellent work, although it was not easy. You may read the articles
of Ewa Kowalewska, who for years reported on their work done in
Russia. In particular, they persuaded the Russian orthodox clerics and politicians, that life protection is crucial for theirs country benefit; and, as you see,
they were successful. However, the protection of human life is not
orthodox, even less Russian. It is a catholic and in this case
Polish implant into orthodox, atheistic and even pagan Russia.

I hope, you will check this informations.

@Henry Ptak, Our lady
requested the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Hart as it was
still a an orthodox monarchy. Some people interpret the massages of
Fatima as implying that Russia will convert after(sic!) the
consecration, and that it will be a clear sign that God was at work,
not we. Of course, you are right indicating that the conversion can
only be to Catholicism wit all the consequences.

Nonsensical incoherent and unfounded gibberish to be kind.The Holy Father i.e. Francis should consecrate Russia to what... his belief system? Putin has publically repudiated communism as a failed system and Francis as a failed Christian leader let alone someone to be looked to as the leader of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Where you guys come up with your insights is bewildering and a little comical. Fr Deacon Kevin

I disagree almost entirely with your argument. You are presenting Russians typically as ogres which is false. Your comments on abortion are very much a lie also, in addition the churches are not mostly empty. I have visited Russia many times, to the cities and suburbs and can assure you, you are misinformed. Things are changing rapidly in Russia, your old prejudices are just reluctant to accept they are happening. God's grace is changing Russia, you just have too much bitterness to accept it.

There are only about 5 differences that separate the Orthodox from the Catholics. And, I think they could all be solved, but it seems that Pope John Paul II, even while whispering under his breath, did consecrate Russia to the immaculate Heart of Mary, and in conjunction with so many millions of people praying for the conversion of Russia, I think there is ample evidence this is what we are seeing.

The Opening Ceremony in Sochi for the OLYMPICS was breathtaking, and told so much of their history. The WEST, what did we do? Constantly make disparaging remarks about Putin and Russia. It was disappointing and disgusting! They, now, deep down are just JEALOUS that they have lost their own identity, while Russia has found God's grace & their own identity. Good for Russia!

Sorry - I misdirected my comment. It was intended for Brian. Apologies in advance to Interrogator.

Before you leap to canonize Putin's Russia and presume that all circumspection on the matter amounts to "old prejudices", you may want to consider taking PTar at his word and examine the work of Alexander Dugin. It would appear that Mr. Dugin's "Christianity" betrays an ultimate loyalty not to Jesus Christ, but to Russian pan-slavic primacy, with Russian Orthodoxy as the only acceptable religion (for the Poles, that means the suppression of Roman Catholicism - again). That the "rootless cosmopolitans" still in Russia seem to find him acceptable only makes his "Christianity" all the more suspect.
Sorry, folks - same old, same old. And if we must have Russian primacy (and Our Lady seems infer as much), I'll have mine after I'm satisfied the consecration is done correctly and when Russia is Roman Catholic, not before.
And no, it ain't been done yet - no way, nosiree.

What the Blessed Virgin asked for is the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the pope together with all the bishops of the world. Sister Lucy said God wants the consecration to be public because He wants it to be evident that the conversion of the Russia and the period of peace that will be granted to the world as unmistakable effects of that consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

This has not been done to this day. Let us give God more credit in the kind of period of peace that He promised through the Blessed Mother. This is not it. And we do not yet have the promised conversion of Russia.

Does this mean that the Remnant is going to name?

I am perplexed by those who identify Catholic Orthodox Bishops (Orthodox Russian Bishops) as schismatics while their own Pope is incessantly promulgating formal heresy. On the one hand you have Orthodox Catholic bishops who zealously hold fast to the Church's ancient Tradition and on the other hand a Roman Pontiff re-imagining and attempting to overthrow the unchangeable Faith. If you think my assessment is wrong or even harsh then you must not be reading many of this website's own articles. Fr. Deacon Kevin

.

The problem is that this man you're referring to imagines himself to be a "CEO" or "President" who can just come in and change things at will while his "party" has control of the "house/senate/parliament". Whether through malice or poor formation is not for us to judge without proof, but he can no more do this licitly then he can command by fiat that Jesus Christ made allowances for other churches and priesthoods besides the one He founded. There is no need for perplexity on the matter - Catholics have been prepared for exactly the scenario now being played out in the Church for centuries, as early as St. Francis of Assissi (and beyond) as well as Our Lady (obliquely at Quito in the 1600s), and more more specifically at La Salette in the 1800s, as well as (quite possibly) in the third secret of Fatima. Even Fr. Malachi Martin foresaw the possibility of an apostate pope in our time. There's nothing startling in any of this for anyone who's been paying attention all this time. The worthiness of the man currently at the top proves nothing against Church teaching regarding Russian Orthodoxy (and its KGB bishops). They are separate issues - we've had good and saintly Roman Pontiffs, and some not-so-great ones (though probably not as not-so-great as now), and more than a few anti-popes as well. The devil has historically reserved his best marksmen for the Catholic priesthood, episcopacy, and (particularly) the papacy - again, this should come as no surprise, considering the awesome responsibility of their mission. If one is to judge the veracity of Church teaching on matters of schism and heresy, one ought to do so by its saintly popes, or at least by those who have upheld her unchanging, consistent affirmations of dogma, not by those of its mavericks and renegades, past or present.

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870 - First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

Francis imagines nothing he simply reads the dogmatic constitutions of Vatican I which tells us he basically can do say proclaim and impose whatever suits his fancy.

Useful information and no doubt unassailable, but relevant only if one accepts that Bergoglio is without question truly pope. He was raised up under conditions which cannot be entirely trusted, and there are many who believe his claim on the papal authority is questionable while Benedict lives. His ascendancy, political opinions, governing style, and legitimacy have much in common with those of the presidency of Barack Obama.
For the time being, it might be wise to measure the dogmatic constitutions you're citing against Galatians 1:8.

So speak plainly is Francis not the Pope? Are you a Sedevacantist?

People living in glass houses ought not to throw stones, Fr. Deacon, especially on matters of papal authority (at least the sedevacantists only reject the popes back to 1958, in most cases).
But no, I'm not sedevacantist (or a schismatic, thanks be to God), and in case it isn't plainly obvious by now, I'm certainly no devotee of any ecumenical outreach to the east that savors of Casaroli-era Ostpolitik. I've spoken very plainly - I don't know what this is. There's no precedent for it in Church history, and it's the sort of schizophrenia that only befalls the Church when something is desperately wrong (much as it was in 1054). In the meantime, like most people here, I have to work out my salvation in real time, before all of the answers on such matters are officially available.
If it's any consolation, just a hunch, but I don't think we are going to have to wait too much longer before God steps in - if we're both still alive after that, I believe it will be much clearer what exactly Francis is (or was), and if so, I'll be happy to answer your question then.
Fair enough?

So it is not clear to you what Francis is or what he will be after the Great Chastisement? (Is that what you are cryptically referring to?)
Look at the extremes so prevalent in Roman Catholicism today. On one hand you have a socialist jesuit promoting non Catholic understanding as so many of your compatriots are quick to point out. The proper word for that would be heresy. On the other extreme you have hyper traditionalists of the medieval variety pining for the good old days when the much misunderstood Inquisitors had things under control. Of course in reality it really hasn't gone all that well for western Christianity following it's apostasy a thousand years ago. Fr. Deacon Kevin

Sorry to disagree again - that the Roman Catholic Church has over the course of her long history suffered due to the sins of those charged with her stewardship is hardly a secret. That God has always raised up some of her greatest saints to help her to right herself in those times is something her critics always conveniently neglect to mention. God has always (in His own good time, to be sure) sent His Church exactly who and what she needed during the darkest hours of her history. In your haste to indict the Church regarding matters that are no secret to anyone here, the historical significance of these figures has somehow escaped your notice.St. Francis of Assissi, St. Vincent Ferrer, St. Dominic, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux never seem to find there way into your field of vision. It would have been interesting to compare the tone and tenor of the remarks your predecessors directed at the Church before and after Lepanto
Let's be honest, Fr. Deacon - your righteous indignation about the confusion in the Barque of Peter's wheelhouse is just a smokescreen to cover your fear that she will do so again, and even more gloriously than before, as the Mother of God herself has promised. Our Lady is not a liar.

Our Lady certainly is not a liar and Orthodox Catholic Christians in the East were the first to magnify her and give her the proper homage befitting her importance in the economy of our salvation.

As is the custom of our separated brethren however they have seen fit to to go beyond the confines of Catholic Tradition and have deviated in ways that neither honor her rightly or stay faithful to the Apostolic teaching.

I want to make this clear. She who is more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious beyond compare that the Seraphim and who without corruption bore God the Word would not convey to peasant children in Portugal insights or revelations calling for the "conversion" of Holy Catholic Orthodox Russia to the apostate Latin schismatics under the guidance of a socialist Jesuit claiming to be Christ's Vicar and who can hardly have a week go by without spouting some new heresy. Fr. Deacon Kevin

Your fondness for Our Lady is most heartening - then you don't mind if the pope (probably not this one, of course) consecrates Russia to her Immaculate Heart, as he was commanded by her to do at Fatima?
After all, if it's all hogwash, what harm can it do?

What Francis consecrates or desecrates is up to him. What he or any future pope of Rome does is of little concern to us. If however anyone is in need of the powerful intercessions of our Lady you would be much better off directing those petitions in behalf of the apostate and declining west. Orthodox Catholic revival in Russia is miraculous and astounding in no small part I am sure due to the love the Mother of God has for Orthodox Catholic Russia. Fr. Deacon Kevin

Francis's Papacy has once again raised questions of church authority and, in particular, Papal authority. Ultramontanism was a natural and even orthodox outlook for traditional/conservative Catholics under the previous two Popes. Now, with Francis, the risks of ultramontanism are clear to traditional and conservative Catholics some of whom are starting to question the present understanding of Papal authority and Vatican 1. Perhaps Francis's Papacy is sign to the Church that it has erred somehow as regards the Pope's place as the head of the church. Not that he is not the head but that the church has gotten too far away from "first among equals". Perhaps a further clarification of Papal authority as defined at V1 will come about because of all of this.
The AL episode and possibly the upcoming relook at HV are glaring examples of the dangers of ultramontanism. Francis chose the topics and Francis "stacked" things so as to get his personal views embedded in AL. It was not a document of the church as much as of Francis.
The solution would have been to give the Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite churches (and the bishop/cardinals of those which don't have a patriarch such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) equal say in appointing members to any such group brought together to relook at Catholic doctrine. Each Rite, including the Roman, appoints an equal number of members and the Pope, as first among equals, settles issues which are evenly divided. If that had been done with AL the infamous paragraph never would have made it into the document.
There certainly needs to be more "development" of the doctrine of Papal authority in the Catholic Church in order to avoid future scandals as are occurring with Francis. Frankly, the Orthodox model of authority is more aligned with the apostolic church and the Catholic church needs to move in that direction.

The problem is that this man you're referring to imagines himself to be a "CEO" or "President" who can just come in and change things at will while his "party" has control of the "house/senate/parliament".

Your pontiff is not imagining his prerogatives and authority but simply applying that which is his divine right according to Vatican I.He governs you rules you and there is no denying or obstructing him. Good luck trying to change it! As the Borg so aptly put it "Resistance is futile" Your own dogma condemns your opposition to all things Bergollian.

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870 - First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ
Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd50. This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. This power of the supreme pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the supreme and universal pastor; for St Gregory the Great says: "My honour is the honour of the whole church. My honour is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honour, when it is denied to none of those to whom honour is due."51 Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that
this communication of the supreme head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the apostolic see or by its authority concerning the government of the church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.
Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that
he is the supreme judge of the faithful52, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment53. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon54. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.
So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:

“When our Lady asked the Pope to consecrate Russia in union with ‘all the bishops of the world’ is there not reason to suspect that she may have been including the schismatic bishops of Orthodoxy?" - Solange Hertz, quoted by Dr. Boyd D. Cathey in this post.
Regretfully, I did not know of Solange Hertz during her time with us. It was gratifying to me to learn here that she did not disapprove the notion that the Consecration of Russia by "all the bishops of the world" might include the Orthodox bishops. During my own study of Fatima events during a little more than thirty years, I have thought it unwise to put words into the mouth of the Virgin Mother. Surely She knows what She wants to say, and does not omit words unintentionally.

Kevin Kirwan • a few seconds ago
Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Remnant Newspaper.
Seriously do you think Orthodox Catholic Russia needs to be reunited or in anyway subservient to the decadent and long lost Roman papacy? You are in fact Bergollian disciples despite your many issues over his theological moral relativism and leadership.Those commenting and inferring the Russian Orthodox Church to be schismatic is convoluted rationalization gone wild.

The Russian Orthodox Catholic Church holds and maintains the Faith of the holy Apostles without medieval innovations and is in no need of theological or moral guidance by a post Catholic Latin heirarchy.

"inferring the Russian Orthodox Church to be schismatic... is convoluted rationalization" ??? --- You simply need to look up what "schism" means. And while you're at it, look up "The Great Schism."

I looked up schism in my Orthodox Catholic dictionary. There was a nice article explaining how out of the five great ancient Patriarchal Sees, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome only Rome severed herself from communion. The Church remains One and longs for the return of her prodigal son. Fr. Deacon Kevin

A) Of the five Patriarchal sees only one now remains Christian. The other 4 are in the hands of the Moslems. Rome did not 'sever' herself, she simply asserted her prerogative.
B) Only Rome remains as one. Orthodoxy is a mish-mash of 'auto cephalous'ness. A body can only have one head. Peter is that head. Now as to whether or not that head is diseased...

The other four Patriarchate Sees are not even Christian? Please elaborate. Isn't it the official teaching of Rome that the Orthodox Catholic Church has a valid priesthood and sacraments. Who are you speaking for? Fr. Deacon Kevin

Let's be honest. There are those on each side of the Catholic / Orthodox divide who consider the other side to be wrong. There are Orthodox who are just as convinced that the Catholic church is schismatic and even heretical, as there are Catholics who consider the Orthodox church to be schismatic and even heretical. Yes, there are some on each side with ecumenical tendencies, and there are some on each side who reject such tendencies. That is just the way it is, and each person must come to his/her own conclusion and decision.

My point was that the Great Schism happened in 1054. Therefore East and West are in mutual schism from the other, in the same way as a formerly married couple might now be both divorced. It's not a matter of "inference" - it's a matter of history.

Tell it to the Theotokos, I'm sure she'll love to hear your nonsense.

Sometime when you get the opportunity go to an Orthodox Catholic Divine Liturgy. We actually do petition and magnify the mother of God. "More honorable than the seraphim more glorious beyond compare than the cherubim she who without corruption barest God the Word most holy Theotokos we magnify thee" I think by comparison to your Novus Ordo you will become aware of a rather profound poverty in your new worship. Not only does she want to hear from us she truly does. Fr. Deacon Kevin

That is also available in the various Divine Liturgies in union with Peter. It is beautiful.

Wow, that made it past the censors here?

My comment ? Why? It's perfectly reasonable.

The purpose of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart is to convert and unite the world to the Catholic faith through Mary, whether it be Muslim, Communist, Protestant, Atheist, Orthodox Church or whatever. We know from Sister Lucia it is Christ's will to honor His Mother so that all will acknowledge and love her. I believe Trump and Putin both are well aware of the insurmountable odds they are up against. The neo-cons are a great threat to them both. Pushing Putin to either surrender to their world domination or nuclear war. In the end I don't see Trump surviving his enemies. It's all speculation but at some point the world mess will have to be cleaned up and the reset button pushed. I'm afraid it won't be pretty. If Putin and Trump would have been left alone to work together and bring peace who knows what could have been. U.S. foreign policy resembles a rabid dog wandering about the neighborhood terrorizing everyone. At some point I fear, someone will have to put it down and Russia now has the new technology of nuclear powered missiles to do it. Trump is helpless to control his foreign policy and Washington reminds me of the crazy obsessed boat captain in Jaws who has a death wish and is trying to kill everyone. Our hope is in Our Lady and her Son. We are all, Putin and Trump included, only actors in the drama that is unfolding. And everyone of us great or small, has our own part to play.

Russia in general and Putin in particular are neither as vicious and dangerous as the neo-cons and their kindred would have us believe, nor as benign and upright and as much of a force for good as some of us here would like to think. It seems to me that many of us, justifiably repulsed by the vileness of much of what we see up close in the West, tend to think that things must be so much better on the other side of the fence. Maybe they are, in some way, and perhaps they are not, in other ways. On balance, I think that Russia will always be our rival, but that this rivalry need and should not get out of hand or preclude real cooperation in matters where interests our shared.
In Scripture, we are warned somewhere: "Put not your trust in princes." That applies to our own Western "princes" and to such foreign "princes" at Putin.

While I appreciate the optimism of Boyd Cathey and mostly share it, this passage is not correct:

"One such recent visit by Putin was to the newly-reconstructed Sretenskii Monastery in Moscow, built on the site of what once was the headquarters of the Soviet KGB and NKVD secret police, Lubyanka, now demolished."

It was built next to Lubyanka. The building is still standing and it was built in the 19th century. There is now a KGB museum inside, but it still belongs to FSB.

Thank you, Mr. Sepkus. This has been corrected.

Dear pope Benedict, make the consecration. Amen.

Benedict renunced the papacy knowing well what was ahead. He "fled by fear of the wolves". Sorry to say that he never will have the courage to make the Consecration of Russia without Francis' permission.

But not the munis meaning he alone on this earth at this moment can make the consecration.

Benedict doesn't need Bergoglio's permission. But no matter - the pope after Benedict will be the one to do it.

What we see now could very well be the fruits of Russia's conversion promised by our Lady of Fatima. And is it not out of the question to think that the Orthodox Church has been awarded the leadership role of converting the world to Christ which appears to have been given up by the Catholic Church as a result of the false thinking of Vatican II? And isn't the bottom line message is that Russia will convert the world? Mysterious are the ways of the Lord.

yeah and if you think about it Jesus came to his people the Jews as the promised one but they blew it which opened the way for the gentiles to be grafted in

Titular King of Portugal Duarte Pio (a devout Catholic), claims to have exchanged many letters over the years with Sr. Lucia, and when asked about his thoughts on the upcoming 100th anniversary of Fatima (in 2017), claims in one particular letter, he asked Sr. Lucia her interpretation of the meaning of the Consecration of Russia; would Russia convert to Catholicism or return to Orthodoxy? Sr. Lucia's reply was "it is her understanding that the Virgin Mary meant that Russia would return to its Orthodox Christian roots."

It seems to me that Russia has returned to it's Orthodox Christian roots and will to Catholicism when it's fit to convert to. With the desecration of the Holy Eucharist on the horizon I wouldn't encourage anyone to enter the religious life or join the Church.