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.
I am glad you found that interview with Met. John. In a few lines it captures his ideas well.
Much as I admire Prof Kalomiros’ writing and generally agree with his thinking, as you probably know, I’m with Met. John on this one. It is extremely important to understand what Met. John is saying and what he is not saying. Primacy does not exist, nor may it be exercised, in a void. It exists only in reference to the synod for which and within which it is exercised, though it is equally important to understand that the synod cannot function, or even exist as a practical matter, without the primus. Thus Met. John observes:
“…the universal primacy of the Church of Rome would mean in the first instance that the Bishop of Rome will be in cooperation on all matters pertaining to the Church as a whole with the existing patriarchs and other heads of autocephalous churches. His primacy would be exercised in communion, not in isolation or directly over the entire Church. He would be the President of all heads of churches and the spokesman of the entire Church once the decisions announced are the result of consensus.” In the article you quoted from, Met. John says essentially the same thing:
“Universal primacy can only function in relation to those who comprise the synod, and never in isolation, that is outside a reality of communion.”
Met. John’s system assumes an ecclesiology which is quite different from that in the West. For Metropolitan John, local churches represent in se the fullness of The Church. Bishops are not individuals but rather the leaders of particular “ecclesia”. It is not bishops who are in communion with each other, but rather these churches and it is to the sees of these churches to whom primacy belongs, not individual bishops at any level.
All of this revolves around the nature and functioning of the hierarchy. For us, “hierarchy is, above everything else, the mutual recognition of persons in their unique, personal qualifications, of their unique place and function in relation to other persons, of their objective and unique vocation within concilliar life. The principle of hierarchy implies the idea of obedience but not that of subordination.” as Fr. Schmemann of blessed memory noted. Beyond that, for us all bishops are fundamentally equal, though some by virtue of their sees exercise some additional authority by reason of varying degrees of primacy, but even that is only exercised within the context of a synod and consensus. Am I incorrect in concluding that this is fundamentally different from the system which has developed in Rome since at the latest the 16th century and which is in many aspects defined by the dogmatic declarations of Vatican I?
Finally, as Met. John is quoted:
“Catholics must take seriously the notion of full catholicity of the local Church promoted at Vatican Council II, and must apply it to their ecclesiology. This means that every form of primacy at the universal level must reflect the local Church and must not intervene in the local Church without her consent. Every local Church, must have the possibility to affirm its own catholicity, in relation to the primacy. For this reason, I repeat, the golden rule for a correct exercise of primacy is the 34th Apostolic Canon.” That canon says:
“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and count him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own ‘parish’6 and the county places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.”
P, I think, and am told, that Met. John’s position is now pretty much accepted among the hierarchs, even by the Russians, whose previous objections may have been more political than theological. But this position posits an ecclesiastical structure and role for the Pope which is very different from what has developed, indeed, it is ontologically different. How does this get resolved, especially in light of the “Dictatus Papae” mentality so prevalent among large segments of the Latin laity and hierarchy, even here as we have all noted over the years?