“So the Bishop presents a paper about the Primacy of Rome and the hope for Full Communion with Rome, and Five days later he is disciplined.”
Did you read the paper? Its the work of theological simpleton. A first year doctoral candidate in theology would be flunked for writing such jejune drivel. I know what he is trying to say, I think, and I think I agree with him at least to a point but that isn’t the “point”. His Synod reviewed the matter (and apparently previous antics on his part, like refusal of reassignment to a see which needed a hierarch more than where he is), gave him a chance to straighten out and in exchange got defiance. They disciplined and he decamped for Rome having taken a number of shots at the presiding hierarch on the way out the door. Very, very bad ecclesiology. Its also very, very bad ecclesiastical politics. It seems that the fact that this is about politics rather than “doctrine” bothers you. C, 99% of this stuff, at Rome or elsewhere is about politics. Don;t be naive.
“So when we get down to it, is the real problem here that this Bishop has long been an advocate for Full Communion with Rome and thus his actions might result in other Eastern Churches that have not been in Full Communion with either Rome or Constantinopile to seek full Communion wiht Rome rather than Constantinopile?”
No, what we have here is a disobedient hierarch avoiding canonically imposed discipline and Rome providing a way for him to do that. C, can you understand that that sort of behavior is precisely what sets the Orthodox off?
Hey, I understand your point to a degree. If this were in fact say a Romanian Orthodox Bishop who did the same thing, I think Rome would not have handled it in the same way. But in cases where Rome is dealing with Eastern Churches that split either before the Council of Ephesus in 431 (e.g. Assyrians) or Chalcedon 451 (Armenians), Rome sees the matter differently. The Katholicos/Patriarch of the Armenians going back to the joint declaration that was signed back in 1997 or 1998 with Rome and Pope John Paul II has clearly stated that there dialogue with Rome is to bring about Full Communion between Rome and the Armenians. Now, granted, I think Rome would like it to be “corporate Re-union” with the entire Armenian Church in tact, but I think Rome is pursuing Full Communion with the Armenian Church independent of its dialogue with the Orthodox Church. On this point, do at least agree.
However, with respect to the Orthodox, I think you are correct and I would never want to see a Bishop of an Orthodox Church do something on his own apart from the rest of his particular Church. For example, there was an internet rumor going around in the late 1990s that the Romanian Orthodox Patriarch wanted to enter into Full Communion with Rome, but Pope John Paul II said that Full Communion with the Orthodox can only happen when the Patriarch of Constantinopile is ready to agree. Now, I don’t know if this is factually true in every detail, but I do remember it going around the internet during the time Pope John Paul II met with the Romanian Patriarch.
Are you familiar with this story on the Orthodox end? Anyway, your point with respect to the Eastern Orthodox CHurch, I agree with you, but for the Eastern Apostolic Churches not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, I see it somewhat differently.
Anyway, I hope this does not turn into a Catholic/Orthodox polemic. On my part, I am not interested in that and have always defended the Orthodox Church when it, along with the Catholic Church is attacked by some of the more Fundamentalist Protestants here.
Regards