Orthodox and Catholics Seriously Discussed the Role of the Roman Primacy back in 2008

Interesting news from vaticanista extraordinaire Sandro Magister and published in Chiesa.com, entitled "The Pope Is the First Among the Patriarchs." Just How Remains to Be Seen. The article purportedly reveals an outline of a dialogue that in turn produced a theological outline meant to foster further discussions on the early shape of the Roman Primacy. The outline, dated October 2008, is designed to direct the ecumenical dialogue about the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as it took shape and was exercised during the first millennium of Christianity, when Latin and Greek Orthodoxies still worshipped as members of a single Catholic Church. The outline has been made public for the first time and it is entitled The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.

The idea behind the document is not new to me. Orthodox theologian Father John Meyendorff proposed back in the 1970's a similar approach in his book Orthodox Tradition. The approach is very congenial to the Orthodox because, as you hear them say often, they have no objection as to how the Pope of Rome exercised his authority during the formative years when the "Pentarchy" of Patriarchates - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople - came to be. Nor the Orthodox would necessarily object to express the unique Petrine consciousness and identity of the Church of Rome during the first millennium, much as they are wont to downplay it elsewhere and everywhere after the Great Schism.

I am optimistic that the multiple misunderstandings that arose after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the "Petrine Settlement" - the emerging consciousness followed by the immediate exercise of executive Papal authority over the local churches - prior to the schism can be solved according to authority lines already admitted to during the first millennium, but I'm less optimistic about developments after the schism in 1054, followed by the "psychological schism" triggered by the sacking of Constantinople by Catholic armies during the IV Crusade.

Let me focus and simplify the question a bit: would the notion of papal authority as expressed during the First Vatican Council be compatible with the view of the Roman Primacy as exercised during the first millennium?

At this moment I don't see an answer that will satisfy both sides. If communion is restored on the basis of first millennium doctrines and canonical discipline, it will be logical to discard 1000 years of Latin self-understanding, dogmatics, and all of the ecumenical councils called for by the Pope - directly or indirectly, as in the case of Constance - that came to be after the schism. All those councils would be demoted to General Councils of Latin Christianity with no relevance to the East. The identity of the Catholic Church centered in Rome to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ will be undermined, and what our Church has adopted as dogmatic truths regarding ecclessiology would become open questions to be solved again with Eastern input.

If you think that the Lefevbrerist schism has been inopportune and bad enough, just imagine what will happen if the Latin Church approves reunion with the East under this terms.

I think that our side expects that an in depth study of the "development of dogma" will prove, if not beyond reasonable doubt, then to a degree of moral certainty, that the papacy as conceived in Vatican I is a true, positive development of Patristic Christianity. I can see the Orthodox already saying "no" to such a proposal. If they were to agree to such a proposal, their own claim to be Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, Church will be undermined, followed by their own identity crisis. I can tell you that the monks of Mt. Athos will not go along, and that integrist, non-canonical jurisdictions already existing in the Orthodox Church like the Greek Old Calendarists and the Russian Old Believers will see their ranks swell.

Once again, I want to temper down all the expectations that this agreement may give rise to. We're all hopeful of eventual reunion and I'm gratified that dialogue on very substantive questions has begun. But we're not any closer to reunion and, barring a miracle, I still don't expect to see it any time soon.

In fact, if I'm still here in 2054, the sad millennial anniversary of our formal division, I hope to see substantial progress towards reunion by then. Healing this "original schism" will go a long way to heal the serious divisions that had plagued Christianity since 1054. Perhaps I may even be given the grace to see "the Miracle of 2054" but that's what it will take, a miracle, which in this instance may take the form of a total surrender of all concerned to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and to somehow, somewhere, raise to the call of unity that the Lord himself prayed for during the Last Supper. I pine for that, I hope for that, and I wait for that to happen.