I am pinging Kolo on this as I think this is indeed an interesting hypothetical question. I would have to correct your statement by saying not after 1054, but immediately following the Seventh Ecumenical Council (8th century AD), the last Council of the Undivided Church.
In short, one thousand years of Schism would be erased. The Pope would be the Patriarch of the West, first in honor and privilege among patriarch, but without universal jurisdiction. All Catholic dogma considered innovations by the East and rejected as such would be removed as an obstacle, including the Purgatory, Immaculate Conception and the proclamation of the Vatican I regarding papal infallibility.
The Creed would be recited without the filioque* and we would, after a millennium, once again proclaim the same faith as if the Schism never happened, just as it was recited at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Second Council of Nicaea). Intercommunion would be immediately realized. The Church would continue where it left off after the Seventh Council.
*[I must add here that the Council did not recite the Nicene Creed, but a little known and never mentioned different version of the Creed which does not say the Holy Ghost "proceeds from the Father,..." but instead: "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son and Word, through whom all things were made, and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, consubstantial and coeternal with the same Father and with his Son who has had no beginning. The unbuilt-up, indivisible, incomprehensible, and non-circumscribed Trinity..."
Perhaps this could become the new Creed, mutually acceptable and without controverisal statements, the authoirty being that of an Ecumenical Council that changed it legally.]
However, the conciliatory move could not be just a one-sided Latin reclassification of western dogmatic teachings. The Eastern side would also have to be ready redefine its Palamite theology as a theologoumenon.
The official name of the eastern Church, being Orthodox Catholic Church, would have to be dropped and replaced with simple Catholic Church, as the distinction of orthodoxy would no longer apply only to the East, as understood by the East since the western Schism; the whole Church would proclaim the same catholic and orthodox faith once again, and we would once again all be Catholics.
As for Mark's fear of being overrun by pantsuit nuns, I disagree. Since universal jurisdiction would no longer apply, the various clergy and nuns of this kind would be under the jurisdiction of local Patriarchs and Metorpolitans where they serve and would be subject to the discipline and tradition of those Patriarchates and Metropolias which may turn out to be a rude awakening for some. Eastern priests deny communion where they see fit and Orthodox nun wear habits, not pantsuits; the monastic are in monasteries; that's the idea behind taking monastic vows. Monastics are not social workers.
How "hypothetical" is your hypothetical question, Alex?
“I am pinging Kolo on this as I think this is indeed an interesting hypothetical question.”
Thank-you. I too think its an interesting scenario. But my initial reaction was just the same as Mark’s. I know my reaction would be deep suspicion. And I would be concerned not about the Wiccan nuns, but rather the uncatechized Latin laity who might well flood into our parishes fleeing the NO liturgies and the VII mentality prevalent in so many Latin dioceses. They will come in “as of right”, not like the usual inquirer who might someday after a long period become baptised and/or chrismated. What will the modern Latin mindset do to Orthodoxy at the parish level in the West? How do we deal with the availability of Saturday liturgies in English when we are trying to explain to our children that they can’t be on that sports team that plays on Sunday morning because we go to the DL? I went through that and the oldest wasn’t on those teams, but we didn’t have any alternative to a Sunday DL. How do we deal with a hierarchy, at least in this country, which is so very, very political?
As for the theological problems, of course it would be helpful and a source of reunion if the churches believed dogmatically the exact same things, which, as you point out Kosta, brings us back to the 8th century. And of course that cuts both ways and a council can deal with the dogma/theologoumenna matter.
I can’t imagine why we would want, or agree, to change the Creed. That looks to me to be change for the sake of change. Orthodoxy doesn’t do that.
What do we do with the Orthodox parishes scattered, and they are scattered, across the central and mountain states? Can they remain under their bishops and metropolitans? Will the overwhelming dominance of the Latins and their Patriarch quickly or slowly turn us into Maronites with an unmarried clergy and a Latinized liturgy? Will a new Archbishop Ireland arise and we be left looking for a new +Alexis Toth but with no where to run? Assurances that the Latin bishops will leave us alone frankly ring hollow to me in light of the freedom those hierarchs seem to feel about intruding themselves into the affairs of other bishops’ dioceses, especially when politics is involved. The Vatican knows of these concerns; they’ve been warned about them rather continually of late I’m told and there have been some encouraging signs, but its far too soon to tell if the days of boundary crossing are over. In fact, the latest actions of Archbishop Burke and his attacks on the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston over the Kennedy funeral indicate quite the opposite.
I readily admit that my concerns are in many senses parochially American, or North American, but that’s where I live. The same concerns would apply in Western Europe.