I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".
Vatican I rules the Pontiff out of being marginalized into a moderator of the Eastern Churches
Vatican I does not rule out the situation of exercise of the Supreme Pontificate that existed in the first millennium. Pretending that it anathematized St. Leo and St. Gregory is sheer foolishness. Let me add that JP II, in UUS 94, was in complete agreement with your cite as regards the powers of the Papacy:
With the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches. For this reason, he is the first servant of unity. This primacy is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the Liturgy and the Sacraments, the Church's mission, discipline and the Christian life.
JPII wrote: "If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".
Vatican I says: "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema
.
JPII is selling out the papacy. You think JPII is referring to the way Leo and Gregory ran the Church with the Patriarchs of the East. That's not the case. I'm saying that JPII is wrong. The Roman See wasn't moderating by common consent at the times of Leo and Gregory. It was judging by divine institution of the papacy itself. And Vatican I states that the East was in agreement as does Leo XIII Præclara Gratulationis Publicæ:
"The principle subject of contention is the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's divine utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first ages of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after governing the Church in wisdom and sanctity, consecrated their ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth. And accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I. sent his legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest confirmation of the primacy of the Roman See with which the distention then began. Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as dogma the supreme power of the Roman Pontiffs.
And if you ask, "Where is JP II saying that the Roman See would moderate by common consent?"
I answer: "For a whole millennium Christians were united in "a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life ... If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator".
You say that is the new situation JPII is open to. But it's false and it goes against Vatican I.
JP II is willing to act as moderator if everyone else will consent but he doesn't need them to consent.
Vatican I says, "such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Actually, that's more junk logic on JPII's part. The Pope is the guardian of the deposit of faith. First and foremost,not the servant of Unity. He's imbibing in his phenomenological gobbledygook that amused Chesterton so much. (See Chapter 8 of Thomas Aquinas: The reference that Aquinas was willing to call eggs, eggs and not chickens "becoming".) JPII keeps yapping about the essentials of the mission but he doesn't understand the nature of the papacy in his writing. And finally, error plus truth is still error. Double talk doesn't make him orthodox in his statement. It falls right into the double part of Catholic and Rationalist that St. Pius X condemned.