Vatican set to all but throw out Vatican I in new document on the Papacy

[LausTibiChriste]

Thread title is mine.

inb4 I'm happy about this - I am not. The EP is an Ecumaniac; basically Frank with nicer vestments.

I've heard rumblings about this from various sources, but this is so far the most "official" thing to come about it. Apparently the goal is union with the EP by 2025, the 1700 year anniversary of Nicea.

Vatican announces document on the papacy

VATIKANSTADT - For around a thousand years, church leaders in the East and West have been arguing about the supremacy of the Pope. Now the Vatican has drawn up a proposal on how the papacy could be acceptable to other churches. The text could have far-reaching consequences.

Published  on 09.06.2024 at 10:13  –

On Thursday, the Vatican intends to present a document that could have far-reaching consequences for relations between the Christian churches. The text was drawn up by the Pope's ecumenical office, according to the Vatican press office. The paper is entitled "The Bishop of Rome - Primacy and Synodality in Ecumenical Discussions and Responses to the Encyclical Ut unum sint". It takes up an encyclical from 1995 by Pope John Paul II. The magisterial text, which was groundbreaking for Christian unity at the time, held out the prospect of a new self-image and a different way of exercising the papacy, particularly with regard to the churches of the East.

At the time, the Pope had invited the other Christian churches to seek ways in which the papal office could be understood as a "service of mercy" to all churches in a "fraternal, patient dialogue" with Rome. As a result, the Vatican's ecumenical department set up its own dialogue forums with several churches, which deliberated for decades. The results are now available. The project was given a further boost by Pope Francis. From the outset, he defined himself first and foremost as the Bishop of Rome. He also decreed the revival of the historic title "Patriarch of the West", which had been cancelled by his predecessor Benedict XVI.

Renewed form of the papal office?

He has also begun to give the Catholic world church a "synodal" constitution, in which the Pope alone no longer makes decisions from above. In the "synodal church" envisioned by Francis, bishops, theologians and lay people will be involved in consultations on fundamental issues of the church. This will make the Catholic Church more similar in its structure and functioning to the churches of the East, which have always had a synodal organisation, and the communities that emerged from the Reformation. According to the Vatican, the paper, which is to be presented next week, is a "study document" that has been approved by Francis. It is intended to bring together the responses to "Ut unum sint" and the ecumenical dialogues on primacy and synodality for the first time in almost 30 years.

In the end, the document will make a proposal for a renewed form of papal office that can also be recognised by the other churches. Some in the Vatican believe it is possible that the Pope could meet regularly with other patriarchs and church leaders on an equal footing for consultations in the future in accordance with the proposal. The text with the suggestions and proposals will be presented on Thursday afternoon by the Prefect of the Dicastery for Christian Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch, and the head of the Synod Secretariat, Cardinal Mario Grech. The official envoys of the heads of the Anglican and Armenian churches will be connected via video conference. (KNA)

[clau clau]

Coming soon ... the 9 commandments.   

[Bonaventure]

I wouldn't even say that they are throwing out "Vatican I."

Jorge and crew aren't doing this to make Ignaz Von Dollinger, Old Catholics, Anglicans, and the Orthodox happy.

It's more along the lines to once again chip away at the traditional teachings of the Church, diminish one of the biggest "stumbling block" for many non Catholics, and further promote creeping indifferentism and ecumania.

Just as they did the same with the Mass, removing the "icky" parts.

[Aethel]

They already did via the Chiati and Alexandria documents.

Documents approved by the Vatican which claim that the Papacy did not exercise canonical jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches in the First Millenium.

[LausTibiChriste]

They already did via the Chiati and Alexandria documents.

Documents approved by the Vatican which claim that the Papacy did not exercise canonical jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches in the First Millenium.

Which documents are those? Any references?

[Aethel]

They already did via the Chiati and Alexandria documents.

Documents approved by the Vatican which claim that the Papacy did not exercise canonical jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches in the First Millenium.

Which documents are those? Any references?

From:

http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html

19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop's own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.

From:
http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/document-d-alexandrie---synodalite-et-primaute-au-deuxieme-mille.html

1.2 The so-called Gregorian Reform, named after Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085), succeeded in putting an end to the systematic appointment of bishops and abbots by secular powers. Canonical elections were re-established, so that cathedral chapters would elect their diocesan bishops and monasteries would elect their abbot. At the same time, the reform intended to fight against moral abuses in the Church and in society in the West. This process of reform was led by the papacy through the traditional Roman local synods. Meanwhile, the power of the pope increasingly extended to the temporal sphere, as Gregory even succeeded in deposing Emperor Henry IV. There was a heightened stress on the responsibility of the Roman See to preserve the western Church from alien interference and inner abuses.

1.3 Consequently, a more juridical ecclesiology was developed. The 'False Decretals' (9th cent.) and the false Donation of Constantine (prob. 8th cent.), which were mistakenly supposed to be authentic, stressed the central figure of the pope in the Latin Church. The new mendicant orders in the 13th century, such as the Franciscans and Dominicans, exempted from episcopal authority, promoted a conception of the papacy as being entrusted with the pastoral care of the whole Church.

1.4 After the Investiture Controversy of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, the Church engaged in another great struggle with temporal powers for the direction of the western Christian world. Innocent III (1198-1216) consolidated the view of the pope as the head governing the whole ecclesial body. As the successor of Peter, the pope had the fulness of power (plenitudo potestatis) and a concern for all the churches (sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum). Individual bishops were called to share in his solicitude (in partem sollicitudinis), by caring for their own dioceses.

1.5 At that time, despite the doctrinal development of Roman primacy, synodality was still evident. Popes continued to govern the Latin Church with the Roman synod, gathering the bishops of the Roman province and those present in Rome. The synod normally met twice a year. Problems were addressed and freely discussed by all participants. The pope as primus made the final decision. There is no evidence that the pope was bound by a vote, but there is no evidence either that the pope took any final decision contrary to the advice of his synod.

1.6 During the 12th century, the role of the Roman synod was gradually replaced by the consistory, the meeting of the cardinals. Cardinals were members of the Roman clergy, seven of them being bishops of the suburbicarian sees of the province of Rome. The pope consulted the consistory on a regular basis. With the decrees of 1059 and 1179, the college of cardinals gained the exclusive right to elect the pope. The fact that cardinals were suburbicarian bishops or endowed with a Roman presbyteral or diaconal title stressed the fact that the Church of Rome and not any other body is entitled to elect her bishop.

1.7 In the West, there were provincial synods, but the popes also convoked general councils, like the four Lateran Councils (1123, 1139, 1179, 1215) which continued the reform of the Church in the West. Constitution 5 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) stated that 'the Roman Church ... through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as she is the mother and teacher [mater et magistra] of all Christ's faithful'. The same council called on the Greeks to 'conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman Church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd' (Const. 4). This call was not accepted.

1.8 This period of papal predominance coincided with the crusades, which were initially prompted by an appeal of the Byzantine emperor in his conflict with the Seljuk Turks, but which developed into violent antagonism between Latins and Greeks. As a result of the first crusade (1095-1099), a Latin patriarch and Latin hierarchy were established in Antioch (1098) and in Jerusalem (1099), instead of or parallel to the Greek patriarchates. The third crusade (1189-1192) established a Latin hierarchy in Cyprus (1191), and, contrary to the canons, abolished the autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus. The Greek bishops, reduced in number from 15 to only four, were forced to be obedient to the Roman Church and to swear an oath to the respective Latin bishops.

. . .

3.1 After the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, the situation of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe was precarious. The new political regimes, even the restored monarchies, were secular states which claimed to maintain control of the Church, just as the former regimes had done. An example was the French concordat of 1801. Later on, to avoid state interference in ecclesiastical affairs, the papacy adopted the doctrine of the Church as a 'perfect society', meaning that the Church was an independent, autonomous, and sovereign society in her own sphere of competence, just as the state was sovereign in temporal affairs. The Church claimed to be invested with an original legal system, i.e. not derived from or bestowed by the state.

3.2 Pope Pius IX's encyclical letter, In Suprema Petri Apostoli Sede (1848), emphasized that 'the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiffs' was always recognised in the East and called the Orthodox to return to communion with the See of Peter. The Orthodox patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem reacted and issued their patriarchal and synodical encyclical letter of 1848, in which, among other issues, they argued against papal supremacy.

3.3 In 1868, Pope Pius IX issued a letter inviting all of the Orthodox bishops to the First Vatican Council, an invitation that was declined. Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VI told the papal delegation which delivered the letter that the attendance of Orthodox bishops at the Council 'would mean a renewal of old theological disputes that would accentuate disagreement and reopen old wounds'. For Patriarch Gregory, the main source of disagreement was the nature of the pope's authority.

3.4 In the 19th century, the Orthodox Church was confronted with an exacerbation of nationalism, and even with the intention of integrating this into the structure of Church organisation. The Great Council held in Constantinople in 1872 condemned ethnophyletism, on the occasion of the Bulgarian schism. At the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, national emancipation movements led to the formation of nation states in the Balkans. In order to express and foster the eucharistic unity of the Church in this new situation, the Ecumenical Patriarchate granted a tomos of autocephaly to the Churches of Greece (1850), Serbia (1879), and Romania (1885), according to the canonical tradition, and these Churches were included in the diptychs.

3.5 The First Vatican Council was held in 1869-1870, and it produced two documents: Pastor Aeternus (1870) on the Church, which defined papal primacy and infallibility, and Dei Filius (1870) on the Catholic faith. Much tension has arisen between Roman Catholics and Orthodox with regard to the council's teaching on the papacy. Two points should be noted: first, Vatican I called Pastor Aeternus its 'first' dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ, because it was intended to be followed by another, Tametsi Deus, dealing more fully with the bishops and with the Church as a whole. However, the council was adjourned because of the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war and the draft of that second document was never discussed. The council thus left its ecclesiology unbalanced; its dogmatic teaching on the papacy was not complemented by teaching on the episcopacy nor contextualized by broader teaching on the Church. Second, the teaching of Pastor Aeternus was strongly influenced by the circumstances of the Church in 18th and 19th century western Europe, where there had been a resurgence of conciliarism in the form of Gallicanism and Febronianism (see above, 2.3), which promoted the autonomy of national Churches, and an accompanying tendency on the part of states to subordinate the Church to them. The council's teaching on the primacy and universal jurisdiction of the pope was a response to the perceived threat to the unity and independence of the Church.

3.6 Although Pastor Aeternus taught that the pope has ordinary and immediate episcopal jurisdiction over the Church as a whole, it nevertheless stressed that the power of each bishop is 'asserted, confirmed and vindicated' by the pope, and affirmed that the Church's 'bond of unity' is one of 'communion and of profession of the same faith' (DS 3060-3061). Moreover, the subsequent declaration of the German bishops in 1875, which was solemnly approved by Pope Pius IX, insisted, against certain interpretations of the council's teaching, that the papacy and the episcopate are both 'of divine institution' (DS 3115).

3.7 With regard to infallibility, the council defined not the personal infallibility of the pope, but his ability under certain conditions to proclaim infallibly the faith of the Church (DS 3074), and when it said that such ex cathedra definitions are 'irreformable of themselves, not because of the consent of the Church [ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae]' it was not separating the pope from the communion and faith of the Church but declaring that such definitions do not need further ratification. That was a specific response to the 4th Gallican article of 1682, which stated that the pope's judgment 'is not irreformable, at least pending the consent of the Church'.

3.8 Vatican I reinforced the prevalent tendency in Western ecclesiology following Lateran IV, which held that the universal Church had priority over the local Churches and possessed its own structure above the latter. The pope was not simply the bishop of the local Church of Rome, but pastor of the whole Church. The pope had jurisdiction over the whole Church, while the bishops had jurisdiction over their particular flock.

3.9 The teaching of Vatican I on the papal primacy of jurisdiction and infallibility was rejected by some Roman Catholics, who subsequently formed the Old Catholic Church. The teaching also provoked some reaction from the Catholic Eastern Churches, though they ultimately accepted it.

3.10 Vatican I's teaching on the papal primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church and papal infallibility was considered unacceptable by the Orthodox Church. Such an ecclesiology is for the Orthodox a serious departure from the canonical tradition of the Fathers and the ecumenical councils, because it obscures the catholicity of each local Church. In the wake of Vatican I, arguments deployed by the Orthodox included, among others: that the head of the whole Church is not a mortal, sinful man, but the sinless and immortal God-man Christ; that St Peter himself was not a monarch nor mighty, but first among the apostles; that the jurisdiction of each patriarch is geographically determined by the sacred canons, and that none has jurisdiction over the Church as a whole. On the specific matter of infallibility, the Orthodox Church also considered that infallibility belongs to the Church as a whole, as expressed by councils received by the entire people of God. It must be admitted that these arguments were often invoked in a polemical way, and not in a historical-critical manner.

. . .

4.4 One of the most important results of the 20th century ressourcement is 'eucharistic ecclesiology', which sees the local Church gathered around its bishop for the celebration of the Eucharist as a manifestation of the whole Church (cf. Ignatius, Smyrn. , and as the starting point and central focus of ecclesiological reflection. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) taught that such a gathering is 'the principal manifestation of the Church' (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 41), and that the eucharistic sacrifice is 'the source and summit of the whole Christian life' (Lumen Gentium, 11; cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10). It further highlighted the significance of the local Church when it said that 'a bishop marked with the fullness of the sacrament of Orders, is "the steward of the grace of the supreme priesthood", especially in the Eucharist, which he offers or causes to be offered, and by which the Church continually lives and grows' (Lumen Gentium, 26). The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in Crete (2016) stated that 'the tradition of the Apostles and Fathers' always emphasised 'the indissoluble relation both between the entire mystery of the divine Economy in Christ and the mystery of the Church, and also between the mystery of the Church and the mystery of the holy Eucharist, which is continually confirmed in the sacramental life of the Church through the operation of the Holy Spirit' (Encyclical, I, 2). It likewise stated that 'each local Church as she offers the holy Eucharist is the local presence and manifestation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' (Message, 1). These two major councils need close consideration.

. . .

4.7 Among other ecclesiological matters, the Second Vatican Council treated the question of how the episcopate is understood and how it is related to the papal ministry, which had remained open at Vatican I. Vatican II integrated and completed the teaching of Vatican I that the pope had supreme and full authority over the Church and that in certain circumstances he could infallibly proclaim the faith of the Church by saying that the body of bishops ('college of bishops') in union with its head, the pope, also exercises both of these prerogatives (Lumen Gentium, 22, 25, respectively). A greater balance was thus established between the bishops and the pope. The council reaffirmed the responsibility of bishops not just for their own local Churches but for the Church as a whole (Lumen Gentium, 23), and it particularly highlighted the significance of an ecumenical council, when the bishops act together with the pope as 'teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church' (Lumen Gentium, 25). In 1965, Pope Paul VI instituted the Synod of Bishops as a 'permanent Council of bishops for the universal Church', representative of 'the whole Catholic episcopate', which would assist the pope in an advisory and consultative capacity (Apostolic Letter, Apostolica Sollicitudo).

4.8 In January 1964, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras met on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. On 7 December 1965, the penultimate day of Vatican II, they lifted the mutual anathemas of 1054 in a simultaneous ceremony at the Vatican and the Phanar. In their exchanges during the 1960s, Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI started to use the terminology of 'sister Churches' with regard to the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople. Vatican II recognised that the Eastern Churches 'possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist' (Unitatis Redintegratio, 15), and urged dialogue with these Churches, paying attention to the relations that existed between them and the Roman See 'before the separation' (Unitatis Redintegratio, 14) . . .

[Aethel]

By the way, the "Pan Orthodox Synod of 2016" referred to in the document was an attempt by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to force Ecumenism and the recognition of non-Orthodox Churches as Christian Churches down the throat of other Orthodox Churches. The Russian Orthodox Church and Antiochian Church, among others, refused to attend the Synod, and don't recognize it.

https://www.holycouncil.org/rest-of-christian-world

Curious how the language of this document is written in basically the same tone as Vatican II - this slimy ambiguous language which liberals seize upon in order to shove their agenda down their throat, language like

In this spirit, all the local Most Holy Orthodox Churches participate actively today in the official theological dialogues, and the majority of these Churches also participate in various national, regional and international inter-Christian organizations, in spite of the deep crisis that has arisen in the Ecumenical Movement. This manifold activity of the Orthodox Church springs from a sense of responsibility and from the conviction that mutual understanding and cooperation are of fundamental importance if we wish never to "put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ (1 Cor 9:12).

Crisis in the Ecumenical Movement? What crisis? Notice how they never explain what the crisis is. Is it a crisis of participation in Ecumenism (which the Synod endorses)? Or a crisis of non-participation in Ecumenism?

Funny how the Catholic document cites it as if this was some doctrinal statement produced by the whole Orthodox world.

It's almost as if Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch are run by the same corrupt handlers (The United States).

It also tried to give total authority for Ecumenical relations to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who is obviously under the same control as the mobsters who run Rome:

The problems that arise during the theological discussions within Joint Theological Commissions are not always sufficient grounds for any local Orthodox Church unilaterally to recall its representatives or definitively withdraw from the dialogue. As a general rule, the withdrawal of a Church from a particular dialogue should be avoided; in those instances when this occurs, inter-Orthodox efforts to reestablish representational fullness in the Orthodox Theological Commission of the dialogue in question should be initiated. Should one or more local Orthodox Churches refuse to take part in the sessions of the Joint Theological Commission of a particular dialogue, citing serious ecclesiological, canonical, pastoral, or ethical reasons, this/these Church(es) shall notify the Ecumenical Patriarch and all the Orthodox Churches in writing, in accordance with pan-Orthodox practice. During a pan-Orthodox meeting the Ecumenical Patriarch shall seek unanimous consensus among the Orthodox Churches about possible courses of action, which may also include—  should this be unanimously deemed necessary—a reassessment of the progress of the theological dialogue in question.

. . .

The Orthodox Church considers all efforts to break the unity of the Church, undertaken by individuals or groups under the pretext of maintaining or allegedly defending true Orthodoxy, as being worthy of condemnation. As evidenced throughout the life of the Orthodox Church, the preservation of the true Orthodox faith is ensured only through the conciliar system, which has always represented the highest authority in the Church on matters of faith and canonical decrees. (Canon 6 2nd Ecumenical Council)

[aquinas138]

As a communicant in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, I am curious where this is headed. The EP has to recognize that the 2016 council was a failure and did not accomplish anything substantial. I also do not feel that the average person in an Orthodox parish has any appetite for some false union with the Catholic Church, to the extent they even think about it; a union without actually resolving anything is bound to only generate more schism. Whatever the US's involvement with the EP, I would think HAH Bartholomew would not want his legacy to be further splinters in the Orthodox world, but his interventions in Ukraine indicate he has a bigger stomach for that than I would have guessed.

Constantinople has claimed authority over "barbarian lands" since Chalcedon, which underlies their reasoning for claiming authority over ecumenical relations; the leadership in the EP right now has a fairly maximalist view of the EP's authority within Orthodoxy, e.g., their creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine despite the existence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which was universally recognized in Orthodoxy. This line of reasoning is not exactly impressive to the Antiochians and certainly not to the Russians, tied as these claims are to an empire that has been gone for half a millennium.

I tend to think all that will actually happen is some eye-rolling grand photo op at Nicea next year, generating not much more than sour stomachs among traditional Catholics and Orthodox. And of course, I expect some interminably long documents no one will read!

[Aethel]

Whatever the US's involvement with the EP, I would think HAH Bartholomew would not want his legacy to be further splinters in the Orthodox world, but his interventions in Ukraine indicate he has a bigger stomach for that than I would have guessed.

My theory is its literally the EP trying to look over his flock. He has jurisdiction over a small amount of Orthodox Christians directly in Istanbul.

Turkey has been an insanely hostile place for the Greeks living there as well as Turkish converts. Even before Erdogan the Turkish government was insane: they shut down all private schools, and all religions had to register with the government who would approve the curriculum for seminaries: this included non-Islamic religions who were required to teach and venerate Islam, Muhammad, and the post-Ottoman Turkish interpretation of Islam. Obviously Patriarch Bartholomew was hostile to that and shut down all seminaries, and this has proven a real form of hostility in Turkey. Post-Erdogan, it's gotten really kooky, when I was younger some Turks told me he was more insane than the Ayatollah in Iran; he views himself as a Prophet of Allah and even re-opened the Hagia Sophia as a Mosque when before the Turks, out of principles of secularism, kept it a Museum.

His direct relationship with the State Department and the United States guarantees a certain amount of safety to his flock. He can't just submit to the Russians, that would provoke crazy animosity with Turkey given how subversive Russians can be. Can't go to the Greeks because they hate Turks and vice-versa. Where else do you go to find an ally?

I think in Patriarch Bartholomew's mind, it makes more sense to be friendly to Catholic and Protestant Christians and be forced to remedy historical differences and teach about Ecology and Climate Change rather than bend a knee to Islam and the Turks at the peril of his own flock.

He's not as big of a figure geopolitically compared to the Pope or the Dalai Llama, so the West doesn't push subversion as much.

[Aethel]

Constantinople has claimed authority over "barbarian lands" since Chalcedon, which underlies their reasoning for claiming authority over ecumenical relations; the leadership in the EP right now has a fairly maximalist view of the EP's authority within Orthodoxy, e.g., their creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine despite the existence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which was universally recognized in Orthodoxy. This line of reasoning is not exactly impressive to the Antiochians and certainly not to the Russians, tied as these claims are to an empire that has been gone for half a millennium.

I think you have to be willfully delusional, mentally ill, or deeply emotionally invested on the Ukrainian side of the conflict to believe that the EP is in the right using this line of argument.

What, the Ecumenical Patriarch for some 400-600 years or so secretly had canonical jurisdiction over Ukraine, but forgot about it, remembered he owned it, and now is demanding it back?

And he also secretly owns the rest of the world with a 1700 year old privilege that not even the Popes of Rome, who was the First See, had? Not even the Popes post Vatican I, or nay, not even the Pope's rather bold claims in Dictatus Papae (that I think even most Roman Catholics would say isn't magisterial or binding) demand that all Catholics have to be under the Roman Rite.

[Aethel]

I tend to think all that will actually happen is some eye-rolling grand photo op at Nicea next year, generating not much more than sour stomachs among traditional Catholics and Orthodox. And of course, I expect some interminably long documents no one will read!

I don't think he cares about the rest of the Orthodox world. He's still viewed with praise by Neocons and Liberals in the Western world, who view Orthodoxy as this fanciful, mystical, but less civilized version of Catholicism. "How quirky, they're just like the Hindus and the blacks, they are probably closer to nature or something"

[Melkite]

They already did via the Chiati and Alexandria documents.

Documents approved by the Vatican which claim that the Papacy did not exercise canonical jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches in the First Millenium.

Well, for the most part, that's true.  There's a difference between having jurisdiction and exercising it.  The one does not require the other.

[Melkite]

What, the Ecumenical Patriarch for some 400-600 years or so secretly had canonical jurisdiction over Ukraine, but forgot about it, remembered he owned it, and now is demanding it back?

This is the same reasoning Russia uses to annex foreign territory.  "It used to be ours a long time ago.  So now, it's still ours.

[Melkite]

He also decreed the revival of the historic title "Patriarch of the West", which had been cancelled by his predecessor Benedict XVI.

That's awesome!  That was one thing I disagreed strongly with Benedict about.

[Aethel]

They already did via the Chiati and Alexandria documents.

Documents approved by the Vatican which claim that the Papacy did not exercise canonical jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches in the First Millenium.

Well, for the most part, that's true.  There's a difference between having jurisdiction and exercising it.  The one does not require the other.

I personally don't understand this reading of history. I think if you want to go with the Catholic perspective, it makes more sense to go with the interpretation that Rome always had this jurisdiction and tried to exercise it repeatedly (for instance, the Irenean Jewish calendar controversy, Chalcedon, the fact that Rome had to personally confirm every Ecumenical Council and the Byzantine Emperor, etc.), but due to decentralization, politics, and doctrinal ambiguity, not all the Churches obeyed Rome.

To claim that for 800 years Rome had this secret power that it never used when, for centuries, heretics were killing each other for heresy and martyring true believers and still never felt the need to use it, but then decided to pull it out of nowhere to excommunicate Constantinople, is absurd.

That would be like if Biden came out today and decided to abolish the Two Houses of Congress and said "Hey guys, it turns out that we have a lost part of the Constitution written by James Madison and the President can abolish the Congress".