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.
Not really. There was a lot more "tolerance" between the east and the West in those days. The important thing was not the "rite" but the faith. As long as the East recognized the same Orthodox Faith in western Churches, the art of expressing the Tradition was not a stumbling block. As long as the east saw the Pope as the standard bearer of the faithful, with all the patriarchs on the same plane, they saw one Apostolic Church to which they all belonged.
Problems arose when the East perceived that the West was changing Tradition -- i.e. introducing unleavened bread when it the past it was using regular bread, or when the Pope became more of a "ruler" than the Shepperd. More a master than a servant. More an arch-Patriarch than a Patriarch. Today, we are faced with the same issues, except there are more of them. However, the trend since VII has been to scale back some of these differences and to establish an environment of mutual respect and fraternity if not complete reunion. We are talking these days not as mutually perceived heretics but as "estranged" brethren. That is leaps and bounds more than just 50 years ago! That is tremendous progress, but still incredibly distant form the final goal. It's a motion, at least, not a standstill.
a) the Bishop of Rome is recognized as a court of appeals for those local churches who wish to use this office
The Pope was always a court of appeals of choice for local churches in dispute or theological error. But local churches also chose local bishops or Patriarchs instead. The Latin West was naturally more inclined to petition the Bishop of Rome because he was their only Patriarch.
the Pope agrees that he will not exercise authority over the other patriarchates except when called upon by those patriarchates
It was common for eastern Fathers to seek advice and sometimes refuge with Orthodox Popes. Why not? He was their most prominent brother with tremendous influence and leadership and trust that was established by Rome's almost unbroken orthodoxy.
In other words, the Pope would have to be in the role he was in in the 1st millennium. And the Post Vatican II Popes who refused the crown and rejected imperial Papacy are probably here to stay. The trend is towards fraternal relations of cencensus among Patriarchs rather than imperial dictates.
But that would not be enough, Petrosius. We cannot be in communion unless we share the same faith. With all the dogmas and theological customs introduced by those dogmas we no longer recognize an Orthodox Church when we walk into your Church. I am not sure how the Catholics experience Orthodox churches, that is not mine to say, but I am sure you know you are not in a Catholic church!
How can we come to terms with our theological difference -- including Papal infallibility clause? I am not sure, but it cannot be done in a Grand Council of two churches because it would lack the authority of an ecumenical council.
The Pope can't convene a council because we are not in communion with him. The council cannot change doctrine unless it is ecumenical,...so you have a catch 22.
The only way would be for the Church of the West to table its theological pronouncements sine the 11th century and to return to the Church of the Seven Councils under the condition that all the innovations and inventions (East or West) would immediately have to be addressed in an Ecumenical Council until resolved one way or another. In case of failure, the Church would go back to status ante admitting that we are not capable of physical union because of our imperfect nature, but that we can be in a bona fide spiritual union, treating each other as equally right and equally fallacious, without accusations.