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?
Here is an example of the exaggerated fears that we must rid of. The popes have not really worked in the isolated monarchical style that the Orthodox fear. Even when they have made pronouncements in their own name you will find that there has been a wide consultation with the bishops beforehand. This was true, for instance, in both the modern papal declarations concerning the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. So while the form of these decrees may have been papal, the substance was synodal. The primacy must operate in communion with the synod, but given the modern means of communication, must this always be through a formal agency?