Interview with Don Ennio Innocenti
(formerly Secretary of the Ecumenical Commission of the Vicariate of Rome, chaplain of the Sacred Fraternitas Aurigarum and member of the presbytery of the Patriarchal Basilica Vaticana)
By Filippo Romeo, Associate Researcher at IsAG – Institute on Advanced Studies in Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences, Italy
Ecumenicalism, or the complex plan and effort for the promotion and restoration of unity between all Christians, in addition to being one of the major aims of the ecumenical council Vatican II, it is certainly one of the major challenges that the Catholic Church recognized and will need to deal with in short time. This objective has its roots in the testament left by Jesus himself, its founder, that in the hour of his Passion, on the eve of his death, prayed that all Christians could be one: “Ut unum sint” (Gv 17, 21). Such a unity in fact, that the Lord originally donated to His church and in within He wanted to embrace all, by no means an optional element, but surely represents a central component of His work because inwards it expressed all the depth of His unconditional love.
There is no doubt that with the current historical moment, characterized by many geopolitical upheavals, it would be advantageous that the Christians spoke with one united voice, in order to create a substantial defense against the crisis of values and identity that, was born within the West and is diminishing gradually in various forms – economic, social and anthropologic—jeopardizing the security and influence of the European states.
It stand as proof this deep crisis is affecting the family structure which is a natural element in the foundation of society that is in large part also due to the demographic predicament which now demoralizes all the alleged advanced countries.
In these terms it also expresses the “manifesto of Minsk”, signed during the fourth European Orthodox Catholic Forum held last June, in wherein it is clearly stated that “over the past two decades the globalization process on a global scale, as well as the secularization of European legislation on ethical issues, have posed problems that require joint responses”.
Catholics and Orthodox have several things in common on both the ecclesiological platform and on the doctrine of faith, as well as ethics, culture and the overall vision of society.
Speaking of which, Saint John Paul II, referring to the Orthodox churches wrote in the Apostolic literature Lumen Oriental: “We have in common almost everything; and we have in common above all the longing for unity”.
The breadth and depth of these common grounds, although still insufficient to overcome the dialectic which opposes them for a complete spiritual cohesion, can certainly symbolize a fundamental element to face together the geopolitical challenges of the third millennium.
The relationship with the Protestants is different however, with whom there are many misunderstandings and substantial differences in doctrine disrupt the concrete possibility to build a common vision.
This, of course, inhibits the movement in the same directions, widening the ways to address the above mentioned challenges facing our time.
On this point we have compiled the authoritative opinion of Don Ennio Innocenti, formerly Secretary of the Ecumenical Commission of the Vicariate of Rome, chaplain of the Sacred Fraternitas Aurigarum and member of the presbytery of the Patriarchal Basilica Vaticana. (F.R.)
I have noticed his intervention on the ecumenicalism in the last international conference on revelation and history, It seems to me that the post of the Secretary of the Ecumenical Commission of the Vicariate of Rome has been the most important among those held by you. What conclusions have you come to (from the reelections that this experience has brought) about Ecumenism?
The Ecumenical aspiration has been alive in me since the time I was in junior high school and during high school it has become a painful challenge for the obvious resistance to rebuild a union.
When I was in junior high school I established a correspondence with a German Protestant student that became Catholic and who edited my first article which inspired the Hymn Marian Akathistos, the jewel of Eastern liturgy. When I was the Secretary of the Ecumenical Commission I was enthusiastic about the agreement reached between the Catholic Church and not calcedonian churches, I thought this was the start of a triumphant reunion with the Christian orient, but then I had to take into account the enormous difficulties also in that area. These are contamination of the Protestant and Masonic environment and the deficiency of the demand of the organic unity of the Christians in the Mystical Body. They do not feel the need for the Pope because they do not feel the connection between the visible Church and the Mystical Body.
Among Orthodox nations, which – according to you – offer the most available Ecumenical dialogue?
I visited Greece in 1960 and there I reported the impression that the Ecumencial openness was tied to the relationship with the Italians. In Serbia, then, everything seemed frozen to me. By comparison, during the Council a famous Italian journalist asked me to catechize a Romanian diplomat that was very interested in understanding the depth of evolution in the course of the Roman Church and this truly informal experience gave me hope. In fact, throughout my studies on gnosticism, I realized that the historical ties and cultures among Romania and Rome were constant throughout the centuries and were renewed in the 1900s. The hope was then confirmed with the visit of Pope John Paul II in Romania, during which emerged the clear desire for Ecumenical unity both among the common people and the clergy.
Since then, about one million Romanians have found some kind of settlement in Italy and will have significant influence in fostering a positive dialogue. But as long as reserves and suspicions of the Russian Patriarch against Rome fall, there will never be an end.
In addition, Rome didn’t obey the Virgin who had asked for the consecration from Russia(said: the Russia) to His heart: Rome will have had her reasons, but the request of Heaven was peremptory.
According to the message of Fatima, in fact, Moscow is destined to have a crucial weight in the contemporary world crisis that cornerstone is in Rome.
At first (in which Rome doesn\’t obey to the Celestial request), Moscow – it is prophesied – caused mistakes and persecutions; at another time (in which Rome gradually adheres even if inadequately) Moscow will work towards a spiritual conversion that will have the result to bring a period of peace.
Rome began obeying Lady of Fatima in 1942 (which was followed by the Nazi defeat of Stalingrad a year later), obedience was strengthened in 1952 (which was followed by Stalin\’s death) and again – only partially- in 1984 (which followed the progressive collapse of the Soviet union in 1989). Since then the violent persecution wanted by Russia ceased, but the world political and ideological consequences of the clash continue today (and with them the persecutions).
Since 1989 the ‘new’ Russia has been gradually taking back its traditional Christian physiognomy and also the Russian orthodox hierarchy has been increasing conversations of explanation with Rome.
Recently, Pope Francesco (who as soon as elected, said he wanted to fully obey to the message of Fatima) has started an initiative which has been a world success, which creates hope for further improvement.
In fact, in the middle of the Syrian crisis, while the American government was about to instigate its aerial power in favor of the anti-christians persecutors, the most powerful 20 countries in the world, the G20, gathered under the presidency of the Russian Head Putin.
For him, Pope Francesco has turned the exhortation to become mediator of peace, immediately getting the renouncement from the threatened American intervention and – to follow- the progress of calm in the devastated Syrian area.
Subsequently Putin, on November 27, 2013, paid a visit to Pope Francesco, in which he asked him to influence \”for posse\” to end the violence in the vast area of the Middle East.
That day the media broadcasted some videos of the meeting at the Vatican. They saw the two ‘Tall Characters’ draw near to a table to exchange some symbolic gifts.
Putin was seen speaking to the Pope, pointing out the Icon that he had brought him, the Icon that is the flag of the civil and religious rebirth of the Russian people, the famous \”Madonna of Vladimir\”.
The Pope listened with regard and appreciation, making his way to the interview room, but Putin stopped him asking for something…..the Pope, amazed, showed immediate consent. Putin returned, therefore, to the table of the gifts and bent down to the Icon to kiss it with reverence…. after him the Pope also kissed it.
I had the impression that Putin would have appreciated that it had been the Pope that kissed the first sacred Icon of the Saint Russia.
This fact, further confirms the profession of the Christian faith of Putin, and it seemed to me to symbolize the possible avant-gardist role of new Russia on the way towards peace, both inside its own social structure and in the relationship with Rome both in international relations.
In fact the new Russia defends itself from the liberal poison, accepting the social influence of the Church, interweaving positive collaborative relationships with other Asian people, proclaiming its aversion to the preponderance of big business that to enslaves and exploits the people not only depriving them from the blood, but even the soul, disheartening them with the idol forgery of a deprived liberty of ends, unaware of the good and of the hierarchy of goods.
This revives my hope that when Pope Francesco will interrupt his hesitations and will fully obey what Heaven has called upon him (a duty recognized by the old Benedict XVI) so then we can see the beginning of the promised period of peace.
Without this obedience, the opportune time will expire and we will have the tragic alternative of the famous third secret by now published, last consequence of the anarchy anti-Christianity seen in 1917 with the financings of the usual masters of the world.
What is your opinion on Ecumenism with the Protestants?
In that field there are many professors that hold back. They did not understand that the Reformation has failed even in their area, some – in fact – have also not understood that they are disconnected from the tradition of the Church of the first patristic centuries. During my studies I came across a confession of the most celebrated Protestant theologian, Barth, that completely baffled me. He confessed that serious reasons to reject Catholicism would not exist if it were not for the analogy. To me this seems absurd and makes me a suspicious of their desire to be Ecumenic.
These suspicions were reinforced in recent years. It serves to reduce the dogmatic dissent to a mere doctrinal difference, when then does the difference not pull down the wall of division? There are suspicion that they want to maintain the division at all costs passing responsibility to differences.
When I was Secretary the debate about divorce, abortion and capitalist exploitation were very much alive in Italy and I said to the Protestants: here is a ground where we can unite. Illusion! It only got worse with homosexuality and women priests, Protestant revolutions deemed essential by their leaders. Therefore I do not see how Ecumenism can proceed.
Is it a vanished dream?
I. Like the dream of a united Europe. How is it possible to have this union without the orthodox area, for example Russia? How can you present to the world a civilized communion, if you refuse the Christian tradition? What remains is only the market, but this is wild. For this reason, when I read that Ecumenism is irreversible, it seems to me that it’s just rhetoric.
Can you indicate the essential crossroads of the dialogue with the Protestants?
The first point is that of taking seriously the relevant Word of God, beyond the biblical criticism and to ensure an ecclesial hermeneutic (beyond the individual subjectivism) to ensure the transmission in the direction of all people (beyond the restrictions of language and culture.)
The second point is the sacramental ministry of the Eucharist that are not social conventions but which guarantee the divine presence in the Church.
The third point is the conception of the Church as an organic body outside of which there is no safe evangelization and sanctification.
The fourth is a balanced anthropology that allows the justification of the freedom and salvation of the divine grace on the freedom of humanity: without this one cannot bring about the salvation in history and cannot speak of the history of salvation: the story must be saved through the grace of the receptive man.
Does the European cultural osmosis also facilitates the Ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic and Protestant bodies?
The prevailing culture in Europe is that of Protestant and is a culture that by now is immanent, an atheist, that of the development of Kantianism has become neo positivist.
On the theological level the comparison does not permit hope because the theological Catholic culture is dominated by Rahnerism. It is not even on the artistic level, given that the Protestants (following the Lutheran explosion against the sale of indulgences – Saint Peter!- and the iconoclastic rejections of Karlstadt) have produced very little in the figurative and also in music. It is in their home that music was favored without significance. Only mass tourism (whether it was better used by the Catholic party) could bring a beneficial cultural dialogue.
Does the inter-religious dialogue produce good effects?
Effects of courtesy. The Africans they must overcome naturalism, Indians must ensure the true transcendence of divinity, and with Chinese it is necessary to overcome the memory of the Opium War and the mass materialism. The Japanese, then, need to overcome the prejudice that led to the martyrdom of 30,000 Christians in 1637 and, above all, resentment against the “Christian” bomb of 1945.
