Thank you for sharing this article. What an amazing achievement it would be if the two largest bodies of the Church could come to organic unity and settle the major differences that have divided them. What a witness it would be to the power of God and the reality of the Church as the body of Christ.

Indeed, a miracle it would be.  Of course, such a miracle will require humility and submission on both sides… neither of which are hallmark strengths of Rome nor the eastern Patriarchs.

Lord, have mercy on us, and grant us that which we are not capable of working on our own.

Even before the Great Schism the Latin West and the Greek East were not in agreement. They used different liturgies, interpreted Plato and Aristotle differently, read the Bible in different languages, using different versions, and generally regarded each other with suspicion.  Nothing has changed.

I find interesting that he returned, various times, to the Church of the first millennium.  He clearly believes that the understanding of the unified Church at that time wrt to papal primacy was different in the west than it is now.

As an orthodox christian monk, I pray daily for the unity of God’s holy churches, but it’s been clear to me for a long time now that the orthodox understanding of things like ‘apostolic succession’ is very different from that of the RCC.  The venerable church of Rome enjoyed primacy in protochristian times for two reasons:  it was the capital city of the empire, and it is the only local church founded by TWO apostles, Sts Peter and Paul.  Their dual but equal veneration is demonstrated by the preservation of their relics together at St John Lateran (the roman pope’s cathedral) and by the their dual tutelary statues in front of the vatican basilica of St Peter.  As we find in the historical record (Eusebios, among others)St Linus was the first bishop of Rome ‘after the apostles’—it’s clear that St Peter and St Paul were apostles, not bishops.  All subsequent bishops of Rome are therefore successors of St Linus, NOT of St Peter.  This is an important point, since much of the roman pope’s more modernly ascribed cachet is derived directly from the mistaken idea that St Peter was the first bishop of the city, and that Benedict 16, for instance, is the successor of St Peter;  he is not.  The acknowledgement of this historical fact by the RCC would allow us all, roman catholic and orthodox Christians alike, to make some serious progress in restoring communion among the churches.

Unity is good among Christians. However, not at the cost of the distinctive character of the traditions represented. 

There will be unity of a superficial kind, I believe. Just as there will be some sort of global governance. Still, the differences are deep and not easily dismissed. Just as one world government must ignore or repress tribal and micro differences.

I am not a scholar in matters of ecclesiology and Church history but it is my understanding that the Apostles were the leaders of the Christian communities where they lived, i.e. their “bishops.” For instance, James was an Apostle and also leader (bishop) of Jerusalem. Mark was the same in Alexandria, as I understand it. Linus succeeded Peter in Rome. There was no other leader or episkopos of the Christian community in Rome beside Peter while he was alive.

They were first called “Christians” in Antioch and that church had many Apostles associated with it: Paul and Barnabus.

In response to the comments posted by ‘Arnold’, I’d insist once again that history is our best resource here, especially ecclesial history.  The charism of the twelve apostles was to ‘go forth and preach’.  Not one of the twelve is reliably attested as serving as a bishop, since the apostles appointed bishops and moved on.  Once they left Jerusalem after Pentecost, they generally had no permanent place of residence.  John, son of Zebedee and Salome and brother of James might be an exception, since it’s recorded that—once the jewish persecution of Christians began around AD 60, he took the holy virgin Mary, the mother given him by Christ our Lord on the cross, to Ephesus where he eventually died after (we think) returning from Patmos.  OTOH, James, Brother of the Lord, was NOT one of the twelve apostles but one of the seventy disciples.  It appears that he was the son of St Joseph, the foster father of our Lord, by his previous marriage;  Joseph had been widowed and in his old age was blessed by God to protect the holy virgin Mary as her putative husband.  St John Mark was St Peter’s traveling companion and secretary, and—apparently after St Peter went into western Europe—preached the Gospel in Egypt and became the first bishop of Alexandria.  Once again, he was NOT one of the twelve, so he could stay there as a bishop.  St Mark, who is (perhaps with a bit of exaggeration) credited with composing the egyptian eucharistic liturgy)was succeeded by St Amianos as the second bishop of Alexandria.  There are precious few details available in the historical record to attest St Peter’s activities in Rome, but it seems certain that he died there, crucified upside down.  That he was NOT the first bishop of Rome is amply attested in the most ancient roman liturgical and architectural evidence, which make it clear that Sts Peter and Paul are regarded as the completely equal cofounders of the church there.  THEY, together, seem to have appointed St Linus as the first bishop of the city.  Neither St Peter nor St Paul got to move on after that, since they both were executed for being christian believers and leaders of a community accused (by their contemporary roman standards) of crimes against the state—much like 20th-century Russia.  In any event, St Linus was the first bishop of the roman capital city, and Benedict 16 is the successor of St Linus, NOT of St Peter.  IT’S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE GET THIS—the we can talk seriously about roman papal primacy in our own time.  Alice Linsley’s comment is unhelpful, since—although it’s recorded that St Peter established the church at Antioch, it’s also recorded that St Euodios was its first bishop, soon to be succeeded by the holy martyrs Ignatius and Polykarpos.

Thanks for sharing this truly wonderful article.  What a great time to be alive - even with our many differences.  What I took away from this article was the spirit of honesty in dialogue.  In addition, I was encouraged by the part about eucharistic unity (this may actually get done in the next 15-20 years).  All of us (Catholics) know there are many differences but I am reminded that nothing is beyond God.  So, to give up and give into pessimism is just something I am unable and unwilling to do.  Thanks be to God for Pope Benedict XVI.

In response to Monk James Silver,

I certainly agree that history is our best resource, but did not St. John Chrysostom, in Homily X on 2nd Timothy, refer to Linus as “second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter?”

In the 4th century bishop and first reknowned church historian, Eusebius, you do not have to go far to receive certain details that are very interesting - st mark in alexandria is described as having received orders from peter in rome. much later but equally interesting is the attitude of the emperor justinian, who in his letters to the pope describe once more a universality not only of honour, but of jurisdiction. maximos the confessor repeats the same attitude as justinian. the pope in rome is referred not only as peter but as `Rock-Foundation`` upon which the Church is firmly built.
  I could go on and on. Go to the Catholic Answer man, Dave Armstrong, and you will see what I learned just by going through the, not only latin but the greek fathers as well, hundreds and hundreds of occasions in which the fathers describe the pope of rome as having been given the keys of the chief steward, and jurisdiction is many times mentioned.
  There was really no problem until Photios. Fr Adrienne Fortescue, shows that even Photios immediate few predecessors all displayed the unmistakable consciousness of Catholics. There was no question, even in the Imperial household in Constantinople, of who embodied the visible head of the visible body. But in Photios, who became Patriarch through the wrongful dismissal of his immediate predecessor (who had witheld communion from the uncle-regent of the emperor because of the gross crime of incest!), was embodied false charges against the theology and accustomed practises in Latin Christendom, such as use of the wafer as the sacred host, saturday fasting differences, etc etc. But if you read Photios`letter to the holy father, you will find an attitude that is throughout impertinent and disrespectful to the first bishop and high priest of Christendom. Without establishing any proof he calls the holy father an heretic, and the more you read the more you sense the spirit of schism. It is as if you could hear the swearing mouth of martin luther railing against the Pope. This stance of Photios was remembered in the east, and instead of him receiving the proper rebuke, he was eventually canonized!
    So I wrote this to show that it is really not the case what Monk James Silver has been saying. The Catholic Church has been very very charitable to our Orthodox brethren now for a couple centuries particularly, given that we never mention that - technically - the east is in a state of schism. It is sadly true, and therefore our charity has shown a great deal of patience. If Monk James had not written above what history has shown to be in error, I would have preferred to describe our greek friends as a wife that ran off in the Christian marriage. She is a very beautiful wife, of surpassing prettiness, but sadly she left the side of her husband. Too often she has enjoyed being on her own, except when she looks back and sees the many times that strange men - the Muslims demanded her. She has felt she would rather often have that, than to be with her lawful husband!
    It is hard for the combatants in a marriage break-up to reconcile. We must look at doing so by gazing at our Beloved Saviour crucified in front of us to make peace and achieve unity for us and He can lead us. The wife has feared she would not be able to `be herself`and that Rome would, like an over-bearing husband, try to make her into his style of doing everything. In the modern world, that fear is a little over-done - the Eastern Catholics are not having any problems in expressing themselves or their theology in an Orthodox fashion. Fr Fortescue suggests that there was jealousy in her rebellion, and in even her rise from an obscure diocese in the beginning. I do believe that by now, in this millenium, there is no longer any justification for her remaining, again - technically - in schism. We are talking about `my wife`- my other half! The Àpple of my eyes! Let Love - the precious Love of Christ bring about reconciliation and healing!!

Epi-skopos means “over-seer” in Greek and certainly the apostles were epi-skopos of the Church, or Bishops, while they lived. To say that there were no bishops in the Church until after the apostles were all dead, or that there is no essential link and organic unity between the offices of apostles and bishop is to deny to the entire Church, East and West, that the bishops are the direct descendants by the laying on of hands, of the apostles, and to deny the presence on earth of any apostolic authority whatever, which contradicts Our Lord’s Promise that He would be always with us, even to the end of the world, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.  To deny that the apostles were bishops, is to claim that Christianity was dead by 100 AD, which clearly is not true.  Moreover, without exception, those Christians who deny the primacy of the pope when he speaks ex cathedra have all, always, without exception ultimately submitted to the authority of the secular state within the nations where they have a presence.  It is a question for Russians, for example, concretely as to whom do you want to be ultimate head of the Orthodox Church in Russia: Benedict XVI or Putin.  Put in that stark way—and which is the underlying truth of the matter—it is clear that the secular state must not have, and cannot have, ultimate authority over the Church.  Yet the history of Orthodoxy since Photius shows the Orthodox as generally only to willing to submit to the “Emperor” rather than to the Bishop of Rome when he speaks as Pope of the whole Church.  And that reveals a profound lack of faith, hope and charity among the Orthodox.  In fact, compared to the West, there are proportionately only very few Orthodox saint-martyrs who have been willing to resist the secular state to the point of shedding their blood.
T

Let us reflect on the moral philosophy of unity: In union there is strength . But the strength of the union will depend upon the strength of the unit. It has always been difficult to organize common poverty into common wealth. Death has never organized into life, nor darkness into light, nor stupidity into brilliancy. There are some men who don’t enthuse. And ome things which wont’t evolve .Ten fools can never be organized into one philosopher. Ten idiots will not furnish brain matter sufficient for one bright intellect. Onevthousand cords make a cable, but one thousand circles of mist make a fog bank. Think independently , compromise on minor points, but unite and fight for the big things in life.
Each group would hane to sincerely focus on these character building ( character) : courage, dependability, discretion,enthusiasm, honesty, justice, kindness, loyalty,prudence,sincerity, steadfastness,truthfulness.
Culture aspect: Intellectual, moral and physical culture,affability,graciousness,kindly,considerations,politeness,refinement of manners and taste,self - discipline , sense of the fitness of things,unselfishness
Peace to all !!!!!!

Let us reflect on the moral philosophy of unity: In union there is strength . But the strength of the union will depend upon the strength of the unit. It has always been difficult to organize common poverty into common wealth. Death has never organized into life, nor darkness into light, nor stupidity into brilliancy. There are some men who don’t enthuse. And ome things which wont’t evolve .Ten fools can never be organized into one philosopher. Ten idiots will not furnish brain matter sufficient for one bright intellect. Onevthousand cords make a cable, but one thousand circles of mist make a fog bank. Think independently , compromise on minor points, but unite and fight for the big things in life.
Each group would hane to sincerely focus on these character building ( character) : courage, dependability, discretion,enthusiasm, honesty, justice, kindness, loyalty,prudence,sincerity, steadfastness,truthfulness.
Culture aspect: Intellectual, moral and physical culture,affability,graciousness,kindly,considerations,politeness,refinement of manners and taste,self - discipline , sense of the fitness of things,unselfishness

Peace to all !!!!!!