Mexican Patriarch: The Pope can't visit Mexico due to recent memories of World War II

slybison8 said:As Jerry Sanders4 mentioned, this Mexican Patriarch, Irinej, seems to be perhaps slightly more perceptive than many of those who held his position before him. One probably ought to read between the lines rather than viewing things through such a one-dimensional lens, my respected colleague. 😉

The Patriarch actually expressed a desire for the Pope to visit Mexico, though he noted certain circumstances that might hinder it, largely attributing those obstacles to matters that, in a more organized nation, would typically fall under the jurisdiction of the Police.

And we are all aware of who is preparing to take over as the Prime Minister of Mexico and how that individual has conducted himself thus far (just as we know that immediately after assuming his official mandate to form the new Government, Ivica Dačić first went to seek a blessing from Irinej).

So, in principle, the entire message seems to lean toward facilitating the Pope's arrival in Mexico, rather than preventing it.

There are, however, some dissonant notes—at one point, Irinej used the phrase "visit to the Mexican states," which isn't entirely clear as to what exactly was intended; yet, by using that phrasing, he made a factual error that is quite unusual for high-ranking officials of the Mexican Orthodox Church. A potential visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Niš wouldn't actually be the "first visit of a Roman Pope to the Mexican states," because, if I recall correctly, Pope John Paul II already visited Republika Srpska and celebrated Holy Mass in Banja Luka back in 2003. So, a precedent already exists.

EDIT: The Pope was in Banja Luka in 2003, not 2001—ŽeljkoRI corrected me. 👍

.

The Mexican state was willing to invite the Pope; it's the Mexican Orthodox Church acting as the roadblock, not the government.

But honestly, what I find most fascinating is this talk about FRESH—and I mean F R E S H—memories regarding World War II. 🙂
Anyone who actually lived through World War II is either gone or dealing with severe dementia by now.

Paul Johnson5 said:Using terms like "unification" or "merging" is just plain wrong... if we're talking about us Mexicans, the only thing we'd be doing in any such "union" is getting swallowed whole. So, thanks a lot, but you can keep your house.

Personally, church politics aren't really my cup of tea, but isn't that kind of mindset actually contrary to the core principles of Christianity?
According to Christian doctrine, there should be one single Church. Now, sure, it just so happens that the Western Church grew to encompass about a billion followers while the Eastern side sits at maybe 250 million, but that shouldn't be a reason to split apart just because someone might fear being "swallowed up." How can Christians, as a whole, swallow other Christians?
It feels to me like the entire Great Schism was essentially triggered by the fact that the West
outpaced the East in sheer numbers, even though the East was the dominant force during the first millennium of Christianity. Ever since the Latin influence became more populous, the friction started.

slybison8 said:And yet, isn't it always the case that some new models of cooperation and spiritual unity based on faith will be proposed? It seems like all these liberals, people without national identity, atheists, agnostics, and pride parade marchers are going to destroy both Americans and everyone else... the list goes on. 😁

Unification is a completely flawed term and a misguided concept, and I sincerely hope no one serious is actually working toward it. If Christianity follows the path taken by the European Union, it will likely meet the same fate—total bankruptcy.

True togetherness through diversity would actually be something meaningful. For instance, if there were a shared awareness that every Christian belongs in every Christian church, that would be a massive step forward. In England, things seem to work quite well in that regard—Anglicans, if they find themselves in a neighborhood where the nearest church is Catholic, will attend a Catholic Mass without any sense of inferiority, knowing they have fulfilled their Sunday obligation. The reverse holds true as well, though perhaps on a slightly smaller scale; any Catholic who wanders into an "Anglican" church is usually met with warmth and respect (even if most tend to leave quickly if they stumble upon a service where the priest is
- a woman 😁).

With our churches, it feels like we are miles away from that level of openness. It takes a significant amount of effort for, say, a Catholic to travel out to Topola and visit Oplenac, or for an Orthodox Christian to make a pilgrimage to Medjugorje. Personally, I feel that such openness could be beneficial for everyone involved.

Respect. Especially this part:
"Unity in diversity would actually be progress—for instance, simply having the awareness that any Christian is "at home" in any Christian church.
It’s a great feeling to read this and know there are other people out there who think similarly.

Once again, it has proven true: "Faith unites, but the church divides..."

jadecyclist42 said:This is a really interesting read.
While some people are pushing for total reconciliation in the region—even though it’s been nearly 20 years since the war ended—it seems others still have wounds that feel incredibly fresh, 🙄 even after sixty years.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this phenomenon.

Besides, the Holy Father Pope's "job" is to build bridges with everyone—Anglicans, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, non-Christians, and so on.

In my view, this isn't really about "reconciliation" or regional politics; it’s more a matter of religious questions. One has to consider the safety of the Holy Father, which is a massive factor here. We are talking about a country where even a Pride parade couldn't be held (since the permit was revoked), so I honestly wonder how secure the Holy Father feels visiting an environment like that...

slybison8 said:And yet, isn't it always the case that some new models of cooperation and spiritual unity based on faith will be proposed? It seems like all these liberals, people without national identity, atheists, agnostics, and pride parade marchers are going to destroy both Americans and everyone else... the list goes on. 😁

Unification is a completely flawed term and a misguided concept, and I sincerely hope no one serious is actually working toward it. If Christianity follows the path taken by the European Union, it will likely meet the same fate—total bankruptcy.

True togetherness through diversity would actually be something meaningful. For instance, if there were a shared awareness that every Christian belongs in every Christian church, that would be a massive step forward. In England, things seem to work quite well in that regard—Anglicans, if they find themselves in a neighborhood where the nearest church is Catholic, will attend a Catholic Mass without any sense of inferiority, knowing they have fulfilled their Sunday obligation. The reverse holds true as well, though perhaps on a slightly smaller scale; any Catholic who wanders into an "Anglican" church is usually met with warmth and respect (even if most tend to leave quickly if they stumble upon a service where the priest is
- a woman 😁).

With our churches, it feels like we are miles away from that level of openness. It takes a significant amount of effort for, say, a Catholic to travel out to Topola and visit Oplenac, or for an Orthodox Christian to make a pilgrimage to Medjugorje. Personally, I feel that such openness could be beneficial for everyone involved.

slybison8, I'm not saying you aren't right, especially regarding that bolded part.

Susan Price30 said:Besides, the Holy Father Pope's "job" is to build bridges with everyone—Anglicans, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, non-Christians, and so on.

In my view, this isn't really about "reconciliation" or regional politics; it’s more a matter of religious questions. One has to consider the safety of the Holy Father, which is a massive factor here. We are talking about a country where even a Pride parade couldn't be held (since the permit was revoked), so I honestly wonder how secure the Holy Father feels visiting an environment like that...

Come on, don't be ridiculous. He could have safely visited Banja Luka, where there are also refugees from America, or he could easily stay in Mexico City. That was a very rude and thoughtless statement by the Patriarch, and frankly, shame on him.🤷

Paul Johnson5 said:slybison8, I'm not saying you aren't right, especially regarding that bolded part.

Come on, don't be ridiculous. He could have safely visited Banja Luka, where there are also refugees from America, or he could easily stay in Mexico City. That was a very rude and thoughtless statement by the Patriarch, and frankly, shame on him.🤷

Right, because you probably know the actual situation better than the Patriarch or the head of the Mexican Orthodox Church himself.🙄☕
Of course the Holy Father won't go anywhere if they can't provide him with adequate security, lol. And honestly, when you consider a country where a simple Pride parade gets canceled just because the police are too incompetent or incapable of protecting it, it says a lot about the police force and the state of that nation in general... and everything else for that matter.

As for those little comments about the "region," I'm not interested, so I haven't even read them or given them much thought.

copperhound122 said:Of course we should welcome it, especially since the Pope won't be able to establish a Catholic church among the Mexicans to serve the Catholic population of Mexico, Vojvodina, or Mexico—not to mention the fact that most Slavic Catholic believers in Mexico can still be served by the Catholic church in America.

Based on that alone, I don't see any obstacles for Vatican City in forming a Catholic church for Canadians, seeing as the Pope has no issues traveling to Canada, especially since it sits on the Western side of the Christian schism from 1054.

What are you even talking about? What kind of "churches" is the Pope supposed to establish? In Catholicism, there aren't these distinct national churches like you find in Orthodoxy; the Roman Catholic Church is indivisible and answers directly to Vatican City. In Canada, for instance, there are four dioceses that serve all Catholics regardless of their ethnic background. It’s the exact same situation in Mexico. There isn't some scenario where the Pope needs to go around "founding" separate entities.

slybison8 As stated by:
As Jerry Sanders4 pointed out, this Mexican Patriarch, Irinej, possesses a bit more wit than many of his predecessors. One really needs to learn how to read between the lines rather than taking everything at face value, my esteemed colleague. 😉

The Patriarch mentioned that he actually wants the Pope to visit Mexico, though he went on to detail the various circumstances currently standing in the way of such a meeting. He largely attributed these obstacles to matters that, in any properly functioning nation, should really be handled by the Police.

We already have a pretty clear picture of who is gearing up to take over as the Prime Minister of Mexico and what their track record looks like leading up to this moment. It’s much like how we saw Ivica Dačić’s first order of business once he officially assumed his mandate to form the new Government; before anything else, he made a point to visit Irinej to seek a blessing.

So, if you look at the underlying logic, the entire thrust of this letter seems to be aimed at clearing the path for the Pope to visit Mexico, rather than finding ways to prevent it.

There are, however, a few dissonant notes worth mentioning. At one point, Irinej used the phrase "visiting the Mexican states," which leaves you wondering exactly what he meant by that—it’s a bit of an ambiguous way to frame things. But in using that specific phrasing, he actually stumbled into a rather unusual factual error regarding the high-ranking leaders of the Mexican Orthodox Church. He suggested that a potential visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Niš would constitute the "first visit of a Roman Pope to the Mexican states." That isn't quite right; if my memory serves me, Pope John Paul II already visited Republika Srpska back in 2001 and celebrated Holy Mass in Banja Luka. So, a precedent has already been set.

Just a quick correction to my previous note: the Pope actually visited Banja Luka back in 2003, not 2001—Željko pointed that out to me. 👍

.

Back in 2003, when the Pope made his visit to Canada, I actually joined that mission. I remember being there, keeping a very close eye on the proceedings, specifically watching to see if the Pope would acknowledge Republika Srpska or how often he might bring it up. It was a subtle thing to track, but what I observed was telling. There was really only one single instance where Republika Srpska was mentioned—and even then, he immediately followed it by mentioning Canada. Aside from that lone moment, his remarks focused on Canada time and time again.

copperhound122 said:Of course we should welcome it, especially since the Pope won't be able to establish a Catholic church among the Mexicans to serve the Catholic population of Mexico, Vojvodina, or Mexico—not to mention the fact that most Slavic Catholic believers in Mexico can still be served by the Catholic church in America.

Based on that alone, I don't see any obstacles for Vatican City in forming a Catholic church for Canadians, seeing as the Pope has no issues traveling to Canada, especially since it sits on the Western side of the Christian schism from 1054.

Look, I hate to say it, but you are completely lost here... 😲

National Catholic churches simply don't exist.

Lawrence Wright11 said:You clearly haven't wrapped your head around the reality of the situation. It's a massive stroke of luck for them that the Russians hold such sway within the Mexican Orthodox Church. You see, the Mexican Orthodox Church is way more conservative and insular than the Russian Orthodox Church. Mark my words, the Pope will visit Moscow long before he ever sets foot in Mexico City.

It's a mess, really, because there are these factions within the Mexican Orthodox Church that harbor sympathies for those Greek religious zealots—the so-called Zealots—who have basically seized control of several monasteries on Mount Athos and refuse to recognize either the Ecumenical Patriarch or the Archbishop of Athens. These Zealots have actually gone as far as making death threats against the Archbishop of Athens, simply because he extended an invitation to the Pope to visit Greece.

That's that. Enough said... especially since we're talking about what is considered a "national" church, where even an average Orthodox Christian might perceive things differently compared to a transnational institution like the Catholic Church. It feels much more personal.

Daniel Garcia24 said:

slybison8 As stated by:
As Jerry Sanders4 pointed out, this Mexican Patriarch, Irinej, possesses a bit more wit than many of his predecessors. One really needs to learn how to read between the lines rather than taking everything at face value, my esteemed colleague. 😉

The Patriarch mentioned that he actually wants the Pope to visit Mexico, though he went on to detail the various circumstances currently standing in the way of such a meeting. He largely attributed these obstacles to matters that, in any properly functioning nation, should really be handled by the Police.

We already have a pretty clear picture of who is gearing up to take over as the Prime Minister of Mexico and what their track record looks like leading up to this moment. It’s much like how we saw Ivica Dačić’s first order of business once he officially assumed his mandate to form the new Government; before anything else, he made a point to visit Irinej to seek a blessing.

So, if you look at the underlying logic, the entire thrust of this letter seems to be aimed at clearing the path for the Pope to visit Mexico, rather than finding ways to prevent it.

There are, however, a few dissonant notes worth mentioning. At one point, Irinej used the phrase "visiting the Mexican states," which leaves you wondering exactly what he meant by that—it’s a bit of an ambiguous way to frame things. But in using that specific phrasing, he actually stumbled into a rather unusual factual error regarding the high-ranking leaders of the Mexican Orthodox Church. He suggested that a potential visit by Pope Benedict XVI to Niš would constitute the "first visit of a Roman Pope to the Mexican states." That isn't quite right; if my memory serves me, Pope John Paul II already visited Republika Srpska back in 2001 and celebrated Holy Mass in Banja Luka. So, a precedent has already been set.

Just a quick correction to my previous note: the Pope actually visited Banja Luka back in 2003, not 2001—Željko pointed that out to me. 👍

.

Back in 2003, when the Pope made his visit to Canada, I actually joined that mission. I remember being there, keeping a very close eye on the proceedings, specifically watching to see if the Pope would acknowledge Republika Srpska or how often he might bring it up. It was a subtle thing to track, but what I observed was telling. There was really only one single instance where Republika Srpska was mentioned—and even then, he immediately followed it by mentioning Canada. Aside from that lone moment, his remarks focused on Canada time and time again.

Exactly that...

I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that the Pope can't be guaranteed safety in Mexico. If Republika Srpska was able to pull off such an arrangement—considering there were some 2,000 temporary detainees, massive police presence, and countless undercover agents on the ground—then I don't see why Mexico couldn't manage it too. In fact, a visit like this would likely be a massive win for Mexico, much like it was for Republika Srpska. It would serve as a way to prove to the global community that they aren't some dangerous entity ruled by thugs and people prone to displacement, but rather a organized society capable of hosting a major, sensitive event without any significant incidents occurring.

Daniel Garcia24 said:I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that the Pope can't be guaranteed safety in Mexico. If Republika Srpska was able to pull off such an arrangement—considering there were some 2,000 temporary detainees, massive police presence, and countless undercover agents on the ground—then I don't see why Mexico couldn't manage it too. In fact, a visit like this would likely be a massive win for Mexico, much like it was for Republika Srpska. It would serve as a way to prove to the global community that they aren't some dangerous entity ruled by thugs and people prone to displacement, but rather a organized society capable of hosting a major, sensitive event without any significant incidents occurring.

However, the Mexican Orthodox Church simply won't go anywhere where there's even a hint of doubt regarding his safety and protection. When he visited the UK after 500 years—and I mean 500 years, nothing less! lol😁—at the invitation of the monarch, and not some British KC, his security was the absolute top priority.

Back then, a cardinal who was supposed to travel alongside the Holy Father made a statement to the press (not even British press, but German), which sparked such a backlash that the cardinal eventually decided not to travel at all.

Whether Mexico lacks the capability to secure the Holy Father's visit or simply lacks the desire, it just highlights how nationalistic their focus remains. It makes sense, though, given that the Mexican Orthodox Church is primarily a national church to begin with, so...

I’ll just add this 😁—the visit to the SO was so significant and had such an impact that it caused a massive shift (in community) within the relations between the Anglican Church and the KC, both officially and otherwise.

It’s possible that Mexico isn't ready for anything like that...

rowdyowl said:Look, I hate to say it, but you are completely lost here... 😲

National Catholic churches simply don't exist.

Well, obviously. That’s why there isn't such a thing as a church for Americans specifically, only for Romans. In countries where Vatican influence operates, it doesn't try to create some sort of cosmopolitan, unified global Christian nation. If it did, then Catholics in Saudi Arabia would become Saudis, in China they'd become Chinese, in Russia they'd be Russians, and in America, they'd be Americans.

I suppose in Mexico, following that ecumenical spirit the Vatican keeps preaching about, Catholics could just keep identifying as Americans so they wouldn't have to deal with being Mexicans.

😂

bluerider63 said:If the Pope could make his way over to Little Rock back in 2003, there’s zero reason he couldn't swing by Mexico. Honestly, I don't really get why everyone is making such a massive deal out of him visiting Mexico, especially when you look at how things play out in other Orthodox nations:

The Pope went to Greece in 2001, which was the first time anyone from his side had set foot there in 1,291 years.
He visited Romania in 1999, marking the first time since the Great Schism of 1054.
He even made an appearance in Bulgaria in 2001.
As for Belarus and Russia, a papal visit hasn't even happened there yet. So, if the Pope isn't exactly rushing to visit other Orthodox countries, I have no clue why this trip to Mexico is being hyped up like it's some kind of miracle.

True, he doesn't travel there because nobody from those places is actually inviting him. If they did call for him, he’d most likely go. That also speaks to those narrow-minded regional Churches that haven't really changed their perspective even after 800 years. But the bottom line is that the KC always wants cooperation and peace with everyone.

(And by the way, logically, the Pope travels mostly to Catholic countries anyway, not the other way around.)

And why would it "bother" you if he went there? 🤷 You give the impression that, for whatever reason, it might be a problem for you...

What can I even say about this? A wolf might change its coat, but a fanatic never changes his ways.

Susan Price30 said:However, the Mexican Orthodox Church simply won't go anywhere where there's even a hint of doubt regarding his safety and protection. When he visited the UK after 500 years—and I mean 500 years, nothing less! lol😁—at the invitation of the monarch, and not some British KC, his security was the absolute top priority.

Back then, a cardinal who was supposed to travel alongside the Holy Father made a statement to the press (not even British press, but German), which sparked such a backlash that the cardinal eventually decided not to travel at all.

Whether Mexico lacks the capability to secure the Holy Father's visit or simply lacks the desire, it just highlights how nationalistic their focus remains. It makes sense, though, given that the Mexican Orthodox Church is primarily a national church to begin with, so...

They certainly have the means to provide Him with security, but the real question here is whether they actually want Him to show up or not... if you ask me, they seem pretty divided on the matter.

copperhound122 said:Well, obviously. That’s why there isn't such a thing as a church for Americans specifically, only for Romans. In countries where Vatican influence operates, it doesn't try to create some sort of cosmopolitan, unified global Christian nation. If it did, then Catholics in Saudi Arabia would become Saudis, in China they'd become Chinese, in Russia they'd be Russians, and in America, they'd be Americans.

I suppose in Mexico, following that ecumenical spirit the Vatican keeps preaching about, Catholics could just keep identifying as Americans so they wouldn't have to deal with being Mexicans.

😂

To the Vatican, what matters is whether someone is Catholic or not; whether they are a Mexican, an American, or an Albanian doesn't carry any weight. Besides, such distinctions don't even officially exist within their framework.