Deacon Paul,
It is interesting to note that when there are actual councils of the Church, they do not operate by majority voting. What happens is something more akin to the Quaker concept of the "covered meeting". While there are, no doubt, politics involved, the issues have not historically been resolved by brutal up and down votes with first-past-the-post majoritarian logic. Something more gentle takes place.
An Anglican patriarchate in full communion with Rome would be a good solution. Why not? English is by now an ancient liturgical language. Let it be just so. The political fears are probably unjustified, but let the Anglicans discover that for themselves. There is a special prelate for Opus Dei. Certainly there can be a unique role for the returned Anglican house. 500 years has made a difference. I don't think it should be enough to keep the Church divided, but it should be enough for special care and love and consideration.
Likewise for the returning Lutherans.
With the Orthodox, the patriarchate is already a given.
I firmly agree, Vicomte. Rome's problem is identifying which of the Anglicans to talk to.
"It is interesting to note that when there are actual councils of the Church, they do not operate by majority voting. What happens is something more akin to the Quaker concept of the "covered meeting". While there are, no doubt, politics involved, the issues have not historically been resolved by brutal up and down votes with first-past-the-post majoritarian logic. Something more gentle takes place."
I have attended two local councils in this metropolitinate, both of which dealt with extremely serious issues of ecclesiology. In both instances, one presided over by the Metropolitan and the other by the then Archbishop, a group of several hundred clergy and laity, with very diverse opinions, at the end of hours of discussions of the canons, discussions of the problem at hand and a great deal of prayer, suddenly it was clear that the Holy Spirit had descended on the assembly and the appropriate answer became clear to us. In one instance, relating to the removal of a hierarch, the recommendation to the Patriarchate was not merely a consensus, it was unanimous and in the other case, out of over 400 people (hierarchs, clergy and laity), only one layman dissented. When these sessions started, many of us anticipated a political typoe blood bath. Nothing even remotely like that happened.
The key, as the hierarchs reminded us, was to be open to the Holy Spirit. To that end, we all attened the Divine Liturgy before the session and had periods of prayer and reflection throughout. The results, by the way, surprised all of us, hierarchs included. There was nothing even remotely majoritarian or even "political" about what happened there. I know; if there had been, I'd have been involved in it. The roles played by the hierarchs and the clergy and the laity were all different but in the end, everyone had participated and the decisions were the decision of the council, not a "majority" nor of the hierarchs or the clergy or the laity, but everyone together fulfilling their appropriate roles. Frankly, I was astonished. And very pleased.
I must say, however, that this was the result of 2000 years of Orthodox praxis. Someone opined that this is in our "DNA". I guess I doubt it would work in the West where there is no real tradition of this in the Western Church.