It's pretty clear that (then) Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio has spent the past eight years of Benedict XVI's papacy considering how he would have handled high Church matters had he taken first and not second place in the post-John Paul II conclave of 2005.
This Pope appears to have finely tuned public relations instincts. It's almost as if he's been let out of a box. Pope Francis must sense that the first 100 days (roughly) are crucial for him to make his mark on the Curia and on the Catholic Church as a worldwide body. So far, his actions have been bold and decisive – a most impressive start to his papacy.
And the community of Orthodox Churches has found itself basking in Francis’ gaze eastward. For the first time in Christian history an Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I – who is accorded the elevated status of ‘Primus inter pares’ (First among equals) among all Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and primates – attended a Roman pontiff’s inauguration mass, adding drama to this unprecedented event by formally exchanging the Eucharistic Kiss of Peace with Pope Francis. Informed observers on both sides of the Christian East-West divide could hear loud cracking sounds deep within a thousand-year old wall of mutual contempt and condemnation. To dwell on this moment a bit longer, it was the Ecumenical Patriarch’s own initiative to attend the Papal inaugural mass – an uncharacteristically forward-leaning gesture from the titular head of Eastern Orthodoxy, whose leaders are regularly criticised for grudgingly slow and reluctant reactions to overtures toward dialogue initiated by the Vatican.
But even Vatican insiders would likely agree that such considerations are primarily atmospheric in nature, making for good headlines but not necessarily indicative of substantive change. What has really caught the attention of the Eastern Orthodox community of churches is this Pope’s insistence on ‘de-imperialising’ the trappings of the papacy: no fully enclosed Popemobile; no lofty throne; no fancy red shoes. Again, these aspects might still be dismissed as publicity-generated gestures, but such gestures indicate a potential rethink of the very nature of the papacy.
Any adequately informed Roman Catholic or Orthodox theologian could provide an arguably banal laundry list of superficial differences between these ancient churches: a celibate vs. married priesthood; unleavened vs. leavened Eucharistic bread; clean-shaven vs. bearded clergy; Latin vs. Greek liturgical language. A thousand years of division has yielded a long and tedious list of particulars. But the key issue that divides East from West is the nature and role of the papacy.
To the Eastern Orthodox understanding, the honorific title ‘Primus inter pares’ was TRANSFERRED to the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople FROM the Roman See as a result of the Great Schism of 1054 and the Western Church’s decline into heresy. To the Roman Catholic understanding, the papacy evolved to acquire and exercise the controversial – in the East – attributes of Vicar of Christ on Earth and papal Universal Primacy. On both sides of the barricades, it is generally conceded that the rest – the list of particulars – are details easily resolved (or simply ignored).
In this context, the new Pope’s reported preference to be known as the Archbishop of Rome has monumental significance. Knowing the Eastern Churches and their theology as he does, this cannot possibly be coincidental or lightly considered. But even if East-West theological consultations were entered into vigorously, there wouldn’t be a tangible reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in my lifetime. Theologians march to a different drum. Their unit of measure is Divine Truth.
From my vantage in Moscow, I am conscious of far more direct, evangelical and humanitarian aspects to this new Pope’s practices. I couldn’t possibly imagine this Pope wearing a limited-edition Swiss watch that could easily be valued at multiple annual salaries of a modest income earner among his flock. I couldn’t imagine this Pope being whisked through Rome in a convoy of limousines and flanking security vehicles – all adorned with bright blue priority/special status lights – headed toward an airport where his personal jet awaits his command to depart for the Alps. I couldn’t possibly imagine this Pope directly or indirectly organising a court-ordered foreclosure on a neighbouring apartment whose owner undertook repairs that allegedly caused damage to the Pope’s own flat. – Oh, did I mention that the apartment alleging damages (and prevailing) was occupied permanently by a lady known only as its ‘keeper’? But, of course. Why not?
In the interests of objectivity, there have been media allegations that this Pope, while still Archbishop of Buenos Aires, at least tolerated the persecution of dissent-minded priests and other church workers during the dark years of Argentina’s ‘Dirty Wars’ Junta. But a man who chose for his papacy’s patron saint a mediaeval monk who gave away his inheritance to tend to the poor and afflicted does not strike me as a man who would have abandoned his priests during their hour of need. I think that comfortably ensconced denizens of the Vatican’s Curiate and certain patriarch-oligarchs in sister Eastern Orthodox churches are about to be taught a stark lesson in Christian humility and service to the least among us. In the Eastern Church, we call this kenosis – literally, an ‘outpouring’ of caritas. This Pope could change the world.