Dr. Liccione has some interesting thoughts on Roman ecumenism with the Traditional Anglican Communion on one hand, and the Orthodox Churches on the other.
My optimism about the Orthodox stems from the fact that they have held no council, of a kind even they would consider ecumenical, committing Orthodoxy dogmatically to rejecting the Roman communion as one of true, particular churches. There seem to be many Orthodox who take the view that “we know where the Church is, but we don’t know where she isn’t.” Not all Orthodox take the view of the Athonites that popery is a diabolical scourge of Christendom and that Rome doesn’t even have a canonical bishop. That actually allows many Orthodox to consider the Latin Church a church with true sacraments, even if she’s gone off the rails somewhat about doctrine. Imagine that. But what, realistically, could talks on primacy yield?
Taking their cue from the generation-old Ratzinger proposal made in his book Principles of Catholic Theology, some Eastern Catholics seem to take the view that Vatican I’s decrees about papal authority would hold only in the West, not in the East, within a reunited Church. That’s a non-starter. If the pope is what Vatican I says he is, then he is that in the East as well as the West. The Orthodox should not expect Rome to retract anything she considers dogma any more than Rome should, or does, expect the Orthodox to retract anything they consider dogma. The real room for compromise is on the level of the exercise of jurisdiction. And that’s where theology can help.
The compromise might look like this: to end the schism, the Orthodox patriarchs would defer to Rome on matters not resolved otherwise, and Rome would confine her interventions in those patriarchates to matters not resolved otherwise. The theoretical basis for such an arrangement exists in nuce in the work of Ratzinger on communio and of Zizioulas on eucharistic ecclesiology. I for one believe this is how one aspect of the Ratzinger proposal can be worked out: the one where he says that Rome can require no more of the East than was “held in common during the first millennium.” To be sure, views about what was thus held in common diverge, and often diverge sharply. Getting agreement on the point will require consensus about what general form the development of doctrine may take. I think that’s where the hard work remains to be done. But it’s far from hopeless. I’ve encountered a good number of Orthodox authors who, while averse to the phrase “development of doctrine” as smacking of addition to the faith-once-delivered, admit what amounts to development in a sense not irreconcilably different from what Newman and Vatican II meant.
(Please leave your comments at Sacramentum Vitae.)