“We hold that the Catholic position is not a feudalistic Frankish invention but the true ancient ecclesiology of the One Church and that it is the Orthodox position that is a later invention.”
You believe that the non synodal system of the Rome of today is that of the ancient church? Really?
“...the merely “Primus inter pares” view of the Orthodox are exaggerations.”
Do you think that the comments of Met. John of Pergamum relative to primacy and a primus are “exaggerations”?
Where would you get such an idea? The Western model is pontiff+council. Indeed, has not one of the complaints of the Orthodox been that the popes have called "ecumenical" councils while the Church is divided? A study of Western Church history would show a constant use of councils. As a more informal way to work within a synodal system short of a full ecumenical council, Rome has instituted a regular synodal meeting of representative bishops from around the world to discuss matters with the pope.
Do you think that the comments of Met. John of Pergamum relative to primacy and a primus are “exaggerations”
Indeed, not. On the contrary, he is an example of stepping back from extreme positions and looking anew at the question. If I am not misrepresenting his position, it is not a question of is there a universal primacy but how it operates in relation to the local churches:
For the future development of dialogue on this issue, it is of crucial importance that the Orthodox accept that primacy is part of the essence of the Church and not a matter of organization. They must also accept that there must be a Primacy on a universal level. This is difficult at the moment, but it would become easier if we thought more deeply about the nature of the Church. The Church cannot be local without being universal and cannot be universal if is not local.…The exaggerations that I mentioned would be the opinion that Metropolitan John describes as follows:Acceptance of the Roman primacy would depend on whether we agree that the Church consists of full local Churches united into one Church without losing their ecclesial fullness. But this is not a theological “innovation”. Father Congar believed that the papal primacy, in spite of monarchical tendencies prevailing at that time, was exercised within an ecclesiology of communion also in the West until about the sixteenth century, when the papacy succeeded in imposing monarchical primacy on the whole of the West. If that is the case, the return to such an ecclesiology of communion may not be such an unrealistic proposition.
There are some Orthodox theologians, - in the past they were the majority - who attach primacy, every level of primacy, to the organization of Church, and say that what the Pope has asked regarding his primacy does not have a dogmatic content, so therefore it can be relativized. For them primacy is a canonical question not involving the faith. They don’t see any link between primacy and the nature of the Church. For them the office of primate is a matter of the bene esse and not of the esse of the Church.…It is clear that Metropolitan John does not share this position.One of the leading Orthodox theologians, the late Professor Ioannis Karmiris, wrote: «Because of the political importance of Rome and the apostolicity of this Church, as well as the martyrdom in it of the Apostles Peter and Paul and its distinction in works of love, service and mission, the bishop of Rome received from the Councils, the Fathers and the pious emperors – therefore by human and not divine order – a simple primacy of honor and order, as first among the equal presidents of the particular Churches». According to this view, the actual structure of primacies, the primacy of the Roman See included, is due simply to human and transitory factors. This means that the Church could exist without primacy, although she could not exist without bishops or synods, the latter being a reality of iure divino and part of the Church’s esse.