In watching today's ceremony, I noticed that the Holy Father wore his stole and not his pallium. I interpreted this as signifying he acted in his role as Bishop of Rome, is that correct? If so, then essentially, he was on equal footing (poor choice of word) with the EP, is that correct?
The Holy Father, at the conclusion of his presentation, referred to the symbol chosen by the Ecumenical Commission for their work - it is a ship. He spoke of the ship sailing across the sea and reaching port, hoping that it would traverse smooth seas.
Your 2nd item - The Role of the Pope. As the procession was leaving the Vatican, the EP and the Holy Father 'walked' (obviously the pope's illness prevents him from actually walking, so he rode in his chair), side by side. The commentator specifically stated that the next step in the discussions (and I presume she was referring to the Ecumenical Commission), would be the role of the pope. If I understood this correctly, then surely this dialogue is occuring and moving forward.
Let us, as Orthodox and Catholic christians, offer up our prayers for the work of this commission and the ultimate goal of re-unification.
May I also make a request? Could we follow the lead of the Vatican and drop the word "Uniate"? This is one time where the Orthodox can take the lead from the Eastern Catholics who have discarded its use.
"In watching today's ceremony, I noticed that the Holy Father wore his stole and not his pallium. I interpreted this as signifying he acted in his role as Bishop of Rome, is that correct? If so, then essentially, he was on equal footing (poor choice of word) with the EP, is that correct?"
Interesting observation. You may be right since the pallium in the Roman Church has come to have a specific meaning having to do with Papal supremacy over time. I did notice that +Bartolomeos does not appear to have his Omophorion on, which is the Orthodox equivalent of the pallium in its more traditional and ancient sense. I can't say what this means but perhaps neither have theirs on because this service was not a Liturgy.
"As the procession was leaving the Vatican, the EP and the Holy Father 'walked' (obviously the pope's illness prevents him from actually walking, so he rode in his chair), side by side. The commentator specifically stated that the next step in the discussions (and I presume she was referring to the Ecumenical Commission), would be the role of the pope. If I understood this correctly, then surely this dialogue is occuring and moving forward."
You may again be right, but another way to look at this is that the apparent equality in position is precisely because we are not in communion. In other words, the Pope is walking with the first among equals of the Orthodox Patriarchs, who is his guest. One could observe that if there were communion between the two, the Pope would have come out last as the first among equals of the ancient Patriarchs. It undoubtedly has a meaning, what it is I can't fathom.
" Let us, as Orthodox and Catholic christians, offer up our prayers for the work of this commission and the ultimate goal of re-unification.
"May I also make a request? Could we follow the lead of the Vatican and drop the word "Uniate"? This is one time where the Orthodox can take the lead from the Eastern Catholics who have discarded its use."
If names made a big difference to me, I guess I'd point out that from my pov, the Orthodox are the Eastern Catholics! :)
We should decide which thread to follow this on. I personally don't care but perhaps "the other one" would bet better.
I am afraid this discussion "in the spirit" of reconciliation is becoming somewhat a "touchy-feely" thing. "Eastern Catholic," or "Greek-Catholic" gives this political phenomenon ecclesiastical legitimacy, and equivalence.
First, why did the Vatican drop the name Uniate to begin with after using it for centuries? Second, let's review the history of the Uniate -- how it came about, what was its aim, etc. and why drop the name and not the whole thing?
The so-called "Eastern Catholics" represent but 2% of the RC membership and less than 10% of the traditionally Orthodox believers. Yet its political impact on the Church is disproportionate. They are like the high maintenance disobedient children protected by one, and chastised by another parent.
The fact is (by now long forgotten): the so-called "Eastern Catholics" come from areas that were never before the Union of Brest and overzealous Empress Maria Theresa under Rome's jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of each patriarchate has been clearly defined by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, which have later been either ignored or "rescinded" with the local councils the RCs call "ecumenical."
Thus, a vast minority of mostly labile Christians, whose allegiance is politically motivated (given that most Uniates still teach "Orthodox" theology and follow "Orthodox" praxis to match), has become a stumbling block par excellence and everyone in Rome and Moscow and elsewhere must be asking themselves "Why?"
Uniatism will not go away by dropping its name and giving it the status of a "Church." Uniatism will go away when the whole political concoction that has been known by that name for hundreds of years is dropped by the Vatican de iuris as well as de facto. Period. The sooner the better.