Their manifesto is to be found in the document Le radici cristiane dell 'Europa dall'est all'ovest ('The Christian roots of Europe from the East to the West'). Its cover shows an old map of Europe in the hey day of papal temporal power. This document was widely promoted when Rome hosted the signing of the EU Constitutional Treaty, which nevertheless proved to be a disaster... But all this is a smokescreen behind which Benedict is launching an ecumenical crusade against the Eastern Orthodox church and its leader, His All Holiness the Patriarch Bartholomew I, who is 'first among equals' in the Eastern Orthodox Church...A powerful body of intellectuals are dedicated to the idea of Europe as a venerable Holy Roman [Catholic] Empire. Pope Benedict XVI is their front man and deeply committed to the cause.
Interesting article. The pope dresses up as Santa and bargains with bones that “exude manna”. You can’t make this stuff up
"papal temporal power." [excerpt]
Good grief. What’s next? Poor St. Nick...
Mow I know where all these silly conspiracy theories originate! Frankly, I think this Dr. Gillis is a bozo because only a bozo could say something like that.
First of all, His All Holiness is not the "pope" of the East. Being first among equals simply means that he gets to preside as the chair of all-Orthodox Synods every few centuries or so.
He has no power over other Orthodox Churches which are in communion with him because all Orthodox Churches profess one and the same faith: it's a communion of faith. If one bishop, even an Ecumenical Patriarch (which has happened numerous times in the past) becomes a heretic the rest of the Church goes on. The bishop is stricken from the diptychs and his name is not mentioned at the Divine Liturgy. That means he is no longer in communion of faith but rather professes a different faith.
The EP is just another bishop. He doesn't wear special vestments. His title (All Holiness) is honorary and does not imply any jurisdictional power over other patriarchs (Holinesses).
The current EP studied in Rome and his close ties with Pope Benedict XVI are based on the latter's patristic approach. The two Churches have renewed the dialogue concerning their theological differences. Any possible attempt at reunification would have to be preceded by a clear and acceptable (re)formulation of the role of the papacy in the Church or, better yet, a patristic understanding of it as it was in the first millennium when the Church was undivided.
That would bring us a step closer because then the Pope could call an Ecumenical Council (first true Ecumenical Council since the 8th century!). There is also a problem with what the Latins would do with their "ecumenical" councils since then (of which they have a total of over 20).
If by some miracle all this were somehow overcome, the Council would have to find mutually agreeable theological solutions to our few but deeply divisive (almost insurmountable) issues, such as the Immaculate Conception, the Purgatory, the filioque, etc.
If by some miracle the Council were to find solutions to these, they would have to be ratified by each particular Church and, in the East, by the lower clergy and the Laity (or, as we call them, the People of God).
The faux reunion of Florence broke down exactly in that last stage of ratification. The lower clergy and the People of God did not accept it and the Church remained theologically divided, but Apostolically still one Body.
So, I am not sure what this Dr. Gillis is talking about. Whatever it is, it has no bearing in reality.