The pope clearly exercised some authority that was unique to his position and recognized by the bishops in the East, but what was its nature? Was it of divine origin or merely ecclesiastical? What were its limits? Could it be exercised on his own initiative or only in response to an appeal brought to him by others? Was it only over Church discipline or did it extend to doctrine? What was its relation to Church council?
As I stated in another thread, I will be away for 24 hours so please be patient if I do not respond immediately to your postings.
Justinian PING
Recently, when the Patriarchate of Jerusalem was having troubles, they appealed to the Patriarchate of Constantinople to see if the EP could help them straighten out their local troubles.
If you look at the statements I have been posting, in the 1895 statement of the EP, this "appeal to Constantinople" is outlined -- but clearly at the request of the local Church, and with the proviso that if things cannot be settled with the help of the EP, that ultimately the final authority is that of the local council of the local Church in question -- not that of the EP. The willingness of any given local church to appeal to the EP for help in resolving a local dispute depends on many things, not least of which is the amount of trust that the given local church has in the current leadership at the Phanar.
I am no historian or canon lawyer, but I think that it is quite clear that this kind of "appeal to Rome" for opinions or settling of disputes did happen -- particularly within the West, but also at times in the East.
Were the Orthodox churches to acknowledge a return to Orthodox belief on the part of Rome, and were Rome to develop a level of trust in the reliability and fairness of opinion, I could certainly foresee Rome returning -- as first amongst equals -- to being the one to whom a given local church might appeal for assistance. Generally, a local church would turn first to a neighboring Patriarchate or to one with which it had its longest relationship. And the assistance and opinion offered by Rome would have to be received as workable -- else a local or regional council would have to work it out.
The Church is a family made up of brothers. Those who have a problem, question, or dispute, will often turn to someone they greatly trust -- often the oldest, but not always -- to help them work things out. That respect is earned, not dictated from above.
I think that if one looks at it this way, all of the patristic quotations and canons make sense. Also, the fact that no maelstrom erupted within the East during the 9th century can be explained in this context: Rome was seen as a Patriarchate that had, during the early centuries, been very reliable in doctrine and for the most part helpful when being appealed to for an opinion (which wasn't often, it seems.)
When Rome itself became the problem, the Eastern Patriarchates most obviously didn't give a second thought as to whether they were failing to obey a bishop with univeral jurisdiction, and it obviously didn't cross their minds that they should follow Rome because its bishop was infallible in doctrine.
Had universal authority and papal infallibility been the universal teaching of the Fathers, this never would have happened: there would have been massive pro-Roman forces arising within the Eastern Patriarchates themselves, and the bishops who rejected Rome's claims of authority and the doctrines Rome taught would have been declared heretics by at least a significant minority of East Romans. This just didn't happen.
That would indeed be a harmful overstatenent, and historically unprovable.
The pope clearly exercised some authority that was unique to his position and recognized by the bishops in the East, but what was its nature? Was it of divine origin or merely ecclesiastical? What were its limits? Could it be exercised on his own initiative or only in response to an appeal brought to him by others? Was it only over Church discipline or did it extend to doctrine? What was its relation to Church council?
That is what has to be determined in the coming negotiations. But I will observe that the Orthodox side will insist on looking at the Petrine ministry not from the time of Pope Leo I, but rather from St Peter onward, in light not only of concensus patrum but history as well.
It may very well be that Petrine ministry may be defined for the first time in terms stated in your response and, if made acceptable to both sides, become the seed of a new era.