Papal Primacy (A surprisingly non-polemical Orthodox discussion of the Roman primacy)

Perhaps this contains what you're looking for? "Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion," Letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect), 28 May 1992:

The Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, is the universal Church, that is, the worldwide community of the disciples of the Lord(31), which is present and active amid the particular characteristics and the diversity of persons, groups, times and places. Among these manifold particular expressions of the saving presence of the one Church of Christ, there are to be found, from the times of the Apostles on, those entities which are in themselves Churches(32), because, although they are particular, the universal Church becomes present in them with all its essential elements(33). They are therefore constituted "after the model of the universal Church"(34), and each of them is "a portion of the People of God entrusted to a bishop to be guided by him with the assistance of his clergy"(35).
8. The universal Church is therefore the Body of the Churches(36). Hence it is possible to apply the concept of communion in analogous fashion to the union existing among particular Churches, and to see the universal Church as a Communion of Churches. Sometimes, however, the idea of a "communion of particular Churches" is presented in such a way as to weaken the concept of the unity of the Church at the visible and institutional level. Thus it is asserted that every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal Church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches. This ecclesiological unilateralism, which impoverishes not only the concept of the universal Church but also that of the particular Church, betrays an insufficient understanding of the concept of communion. As history shows, when a particular Church has sought to become self-sufficient, and has weakened its real communion with the universal Church and with its living and visible centre, its internal unity suffers too, and it finds itself in danger of losing its own freedom in the face of the various forces of slavery and exploitation(37).
9. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ"(38), have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active"(40). For this reason, "the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches"(41). It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church.
Indeed, according to the Fathers, ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation(42), and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters. She expresses herself in them; she is the mother and not the product of the particular Churches. Furthermore, the Church is manifested, temporally, on the day of Pentecost in the community of the one hundred and twenty gathered around Mary and the twelve Apostles, the representatives of the one unique Church and the founders-to-be of the local Churches, who have a mission directed to the world: from the first the Church speaks all languages(43).
From the Church, which in its origins and its first manifestation is universal, have arisen the different local Churches, as particular expressions of the one unique Church of Jesus Christ. Arising within and out of the universal Church, they have their ecclesiality in it and from it. Hence the formula of the Second Vatican Council: The Church in and formed out of the Churches (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis)(44), is inseparable from this other formula: The Churches in and formed out of the Church (Ecclesiae in et ex Ecclesia)(45). Clearly the relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches is a mystery, and cannot be compared to that which exists between the whole and the parts in a purely human group or society.
10. Every member of the faithful, through faith and Baptism, is inserted into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. He or she does not belong to the universal Church in a mediate way, through belonging to a particular Church, but in an immediate way, even though entry into and life within the universal Church are necessarily brought about in a particular Church. From the point of view of the Church understood as communion, this means therefore that the universal communion of the faithful and the communion of the Churches are not consequences of one another, but constitute the same reality seen from different viewpoints.
(31) Cf. Mt 16, 18; 1 Cor 12, 28; etc.
(32) Cf. Acts 8, 1; 11, 22; 1 Cor 1, 2; 16, 19; Gal 1, 22; Rev 2, 1.8; etc.
(33) Cf. PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION, UnitJ et diversitJ dans l'Eglise, Lib. Ed. Vaticana 1989, especially, pp. 14-28.
(34) Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23/a; cf. Decr. Ad gentes, n. 20/a.
(35) Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 11/a.
(36) Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23/b. Cf. ST. HILARY OF POITIERS, In Psalm., 14, 3: PL 9, 301; ST. GREGORY THE GREAT, Moralia, IV, 7, 12: PL 75, 643.
(37) Cf. PAUL VI, Ap. Exh. Evangelii nuntiandi, 8-XII-1975, n. 64/b.
(38) Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 6/c.
(39) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Roman Curia, 20-XII-1990, n. 9: "L'Osservatore Romano", 21-XII-1990, p. 5.
(40) Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 11/a.
(41) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Bishops of the United States of America, 16-IX-1987, n. 3: as quoted, p. 555.
(42) Cf. SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, Vis. 2, 4: PG 2, 897-900; ST. CLEMENT OF ROME, Epist. II ad Cor., 14, 2: Funck, 1, 200.
(43) Cf. Acts 2, 1ff. ST IRENAEUS, Adversus haereses, III, 17, 2 (PG 7, 929-930): "at Pentecost (...) all nations (...) had become a marvellous choir to intone a hymn of praise to God in perfect harmony, because the Holy Spirit had brought distances to nought, eliminated discordant notes and transformed the varieties of the peoples into the first-fruits to be offered to the Father". Cf. also ST. FULGENTIUS OF RUSPE, Sermo 8 in Pentecoste, 2-3: PL 65, 743-744.
(44) Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23/a: "it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists". This doctrine develops in the same line of continuity what had been stated previously, for example by PIUS X, Enc. Mystici Corporis, as quoted, p. 211: "out of which the one Catholic Church exists and is composed".
(45) Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Roman Curia, 20-XII-1990, n. 9: as quoted, p. 5.

While complete unanimity on theological and canonical levels is desirable, is it not possible to recognize a sacramental unity before all the details are worked out?

This (from a Catholic perspective) doesn't seem possible at least until there has been agreement on all points that we consider de fide divina - to be held by the theological virtue of faith. The permission of concelebration in particular is impossible without this prerequisite. Bl. Pius IX wrote in the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus (1854):

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

Similarly one might cite the anathemas of the Vatican Council against those who deny the primacy, universal jurisdiction, and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. If such remain the Catholic belief - and they must - then how can there be unity without agreement? The Church is united not only by hope and charity, but by Faith as well (cf. Eph. 4:5). Sacramental unity presupposes theological unity: "The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. ... A 'being together' which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart." (John Paul II, Encyclical Ut Unum Sint, §18).

"There has never been a requirement for complete theological agreement in the Church, otherwise there would be no communion between the Greeks and the Russians."

On dogmatic matters there is complete theological agreement between, for example, Moscow and Constantinople.

"If the Pope were to take the position that a true and complete understanding of the Petrine office is still an open question and that the Orthodox position does not rise to the level of schism, then what is the justification for denying communion between the local churches?"

If a pope were to take such a position, that might allow for a reestablishment of communion to the extent necessary for a council to resolve the other dogmatic issues which separate us. Such a communion would at the parish level have to be a communion marked by economia until we could work out those differences. I doubt any pope is ready to do that.

"I was referring to the practice of including the name of the pope in the diptychs, the removal of which by the Patriarch of Constantinople signaled the start of the schism. I was under the impression that his name would have been included throughout the East but from you comments I take it that it was only included in those of the patriarchs."

Certainly the name of the Pope would be included in the diptychs. Commemoration of the pope at the local Divine Liturgy would imply a universal immediate jurisdiction which would be foreign to Orthodoxy. As I said earlier, communion is a matter between and among hierarchs.

"This (from a Catholic perspective) doesn't seem possible at least until there has been agreement on all points that we consider de fide divina - to be held by the theological virtue of faith."

From an Orthodox pov also.

"Similarly one might cite the anathemas of the Vatican Council against those who deny the primacy, universal jurisdiction, and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff."

And therein lies the rub. How indeed can Rome change this, even change the general understanding of this? If it didn't change, it is equally silly to think that Orthodoxy will change its position on this to the extent of accepting the Vatican I dogmatic pronouncements.

"Sacramental unity presupposes theological unity"

Exactly, except to the extent that we arrive at a place where for a time "intercommunion" can take place by economia but as between Rome and the Orthodox Churches, even that can't occur without a true acceptance of hierarchial communion.

"In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. ... A 'being together' which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart."

This too is exactly right. However, beyond the question of the proper exercise of papal primacy, I suspect that a council could deal with the frankly very few dogmatic differences between Rome and Orthodoxy. Deacon Tantumergo and I had a discussion about the Immaculate Conception a couple of years ago which, without compromise, "nuanced" the issue to the extent that agreement could be possible. The Assumption is even easier to deal with. Filioque has been dealt with already to a great extent. I do wonder about the created/uncreated grace issue and its implication for the nature of the priesthood and more importantly the sacraments.

In this context, I must say that the Eastern Rite/Greek Catholic Churches, especially my favorites the Melkites, do seem to be in something of an anomolous position, professing as they do to be fully Orthodox in communion with Rome. Either they are not fully Orthodox, which I believe to be the case, or they have a sort of false, form over substance communion, which I believe to be the case with the Melkites.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.