Well, Peter is the only real issue between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. So, why should it be surprising that it comes up?
It should come up, you’re right.
But it makes
zero sense to imply to Orthodox Christians that they should accept the papal dogmas because of St. Peter’s unique headship in the College of the Apostles.
Why does it make zero sense to imply that? Because their theology does full justice to the fact that Christ made St. Peter the leader of the Apostles. Their ecclesiology recognizes this fact; where we differ is in
how and
in what fashion Petrine authority has been handed on. Orthodox Christians emphasize - technically, they’re right about this - that
every local church (diocese) contains within itself the fullness of Christ’s Church on earth. As such,
every bishop is Peter, and the bishop’s presbyters embody the authority of the other Apostles.
This isn’t exactly what St. Ignatius of Antioch says, but given the fact that Simon Peter’s new name means “Rock,” and that “Rock” is more often applied to God in Scripture, it’s nonetheless not far off: St. Ignatius of Antioch emphasizes that in each local church, the bishop holds on earth the place of God, with his presbyters as the successors of the Apostles.
None of this is foreign to Catholic theology. We, however, also recognize that St. Peter’s authority has a unique significance at the universal level, too. At the
catholic level, St. Peter’s Roman successors inherit his headship, while all the other bishops collectively succeed the other Apostles.
These two visions are entirely compatible, theoretically. After all, the former merely addresses the local level, while the latter deals with the catholic level. And though I’m no historian or expert, what I do know and what I’ve read convinces me that the most convincing and consistent interpretation of first millennium ecclesiology includes both visions.
But St. Peter’s Christ-ordained headship doesn’t prove anything
in and of itself. The path forward is humility. We have to walk the talk.
Then, and only then, may Orthodox Christians be open to the idea that the pope doesn’t want to rule them or wield unilateral authority over them.
And this thread is asking people to give a second thought to the Schism and why it seems like it was a mistake on both parts to begin with. If it wasn’t a mistake why would both the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually lift the excommunications?
Oh, I agree with you. I think our Orthodox brethren do, too. But it’s not 1054 anymore. It’s not even 1204. A lot has happened since then, so the situation is different.
I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you that the events of 1054 were not worthy of a schism (and, in fact, the East-West Schism didn’t really exist yet; the excommunications of that year weren’t intended to apply to whole patriarchates, and even if they had been, three out of the five were not even involved). What we have to do is demonstrate that the past thousand years,
as a whole, do not merit the continuation of such rupture.
But, since starting this thread and seeing how the Eastern Orthodox on here don’t want to budge an inch, I am now of the opinion that for East/West relation building our time and effort might be better spent on building up our Eastern Catholics rather than on trying to convince the Eastern Orthodox why they should be Catholic. I would like if the EO’s would unite with Rome, but they have to want it, too.
They sure can be stubborn, sure.
But we must have patience. They have reasons for their reticence.
I do agree with you about building up the Eastern Catholic churches - not in a way that would imply that the Orthodox don’t matter, but rather because our Eastern Catholic brethren do matter, and they’ve too often been treated unjustly.
**
