Replies

I think that the stars haven't aligned for the unity in historical and political terms, even though there can be detected a genuine desire to work toward union on the part of the Orthodox and the Latins.

That is because the basis for unity that we perceive as we look East, is incompatible with the basis for unity we perceive as we look West. In the East we have a near-unity of theology and ecclesiology. It often seems that if a proper formulae were found regarding the Creed, the papacy and mariology, the whole thing would come together with a stroke of a pen. One thing that no one wants is uniformity of praxis that might lead to an erosion of the splendid Orthodox liturgy. It is therefore toward a greater conciliarity that we in the West should move in order to embrace the sister Church in the East.

The situation is exact opposite in the West, where we have a case after case of erosion of praxis, most gravely with the Protestant desacralization of service and manifest within the Catholic Church herself in the rush to modernize and capitulate to the state. The basis for unity in the West therefore is centralized authority, that would, the theory goes, rescue the remnant of traditional piety in the Anglican and Lutheran denominations.

The East wants unity of sisterhood. The West wants authority of fatherhood. When I am pope, I will look to the East first, and will let the spoiled children of Rome work out their prodigalities for another couple of generations. Who said we are short of time?

For Roman Catholics, the relationship of the bishop of Rome with the ecumenical synods is not clearly defined, as Avery Dulles points out:
Vatican I, which placed supreme authority in the pope, left some uncertainty regarding the relations between the papacy, the universal episcopate, and ecumenical synods (which are not necessarily mere meetings of bishops). Since this uncertainty was not fully cleared up by Vatican II. the question of the supreme directive power in the Church still requires further discussion within the Roman Catholic communion.
. . .
We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome's claims of universal primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the identification of this primacy as "supreme power" transforming Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself. The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical centre of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judaeo?Christian period this centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the church of Rome ? "presiding in agape" according to St Ignatios of Antioch.
. . .

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy.

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? A practical unity could be achieved if, on the Orthodox side, they would put into practice what they claim about the Petrine office. In other words, if the Orthodox would unequivocally recognize the validity of Catholic sacraments, allow inter-communion, and reinsert the name of the Pope into the prayers of the Church while at the same time saying to the Romans: "we disagree with your understanding of the primacy but will not let that be a hindrance to our communion." On the Catholic side there should likewise be the acceptance that the different understanding by the Orthodox of the Petrine primacy does not break the communion between us. I would also like to see this real, if incomplete, unity proclaimed to the whole world by a Liturgy presided over by the Pope and concelebrated by the Eastern patriarchs, after which they could all turn to one another and say: "now let us continue to discuss these issues that are disputes within the Church and not disputes between churches."

This does not imply that this different understanding is unimportant but that a real communion does exist even as we continue in an imperfect way to come to a fuller understanding of the truth.

From Alexis II, the Patriach of Moscow as reported by ANSA via RORATE CÆLI:

Benedict XVI will be the Pope of the ecumenical turning point. Who says this, in an interview to ANSA, is Alexis II, Ecumenical [sic] Patriarch of all the Russias: "We expect from him concrete facts to solve the existing difficulties; one may expect that, exactly for this reason, the pontificate of Benedict XVI will become famous and will be remembered". The Patriarch of Moscow adds: "The declarations of Benedict XVI on the will to develop the relations with the Orthodox Church inspire hope that the situation will change for the better."