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.
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.
I agree. As much as we both giver reverence to the Fathers, neither of us would claim that Tradition started with them or that they were somehow infallible, how could the be since they ofter disagreed with one another?
But to return to the concept of consensus ecclesiae, it often seems to us Catholics that when the Orthodox speak of consensus that they only mean the consensus in the East. In case of Petrine authority, it may be possible that there was one consensus in the East and another in the West. In this case there would have been no Church wide consensus. If this were the case for a thousand years before the Schism why must we insist that there be such a consensus today before we admit union?
Although I fully accept the claims of Rome and pray for the day that the whole Eastern church would do the same, I could foresee a scenario where both sides would return to what they understood was the operative norm for the first one thousand years. Thus without either side ceding on the theology they could agree on the following canonical norms:
a) the Bishop of Rome is recognized as a court of appeals for those local churches who wish to use this office,
b) the Pope agrees that he will not exercise authority over the other patriarchates except when called upon by those patriarchates.
Neither side would have to concede its theological beliefs but it would (assuming that the Orthodox reading of history concerning the understandings of the Eastern half of the Church is correct) to the status quo ante of before the Schism.
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.
I agree. As much as we both giver reverence to the Fathers, neither of us would claim that Tradition started with them or that they were somehow infallible, how could the be since they ofter disagreed with one another?
But to return to the concept of consensus ecclesiae, it often seems to us Catholics that when the Orthodox speak of consensus that they only mean the consensus in the East. In case of Petrine authority, it may be possible that there was one consensus in the East and another in the West. In this case there would have been no Church wide consensus. If this were the case for a thousand years before the Schism why must we insist that there be such a consensus today before we admit union?
Although I fully accept the claims of Rome and pray for the day that the whole Eastern church would do the same, I could foresee a scenario where both sides would return to what they understood was the operative norm for the first one thousand years. Thus without either side ceding on the theology they could agree on the following canonical norms:
a) the Bishop of Rome is recognized as a court of appeals for those local churches who wish to use this office,
b) the Pope agrees that he will not exercise authority over the other patriarchates except when called upon by those patriarchates.
Neither side would have to concede its theological beliefs but it would (assuming that the Orthodox reading of history concerning the understandings of the Eastern half of the Church is correct) to the status quo ante of before the Schism.