Earlier this morning I linked to a summary of some of the work that is going on between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

Here’s a link to the paper that the summary refers to—I’ve excerpted two sections below::

The role of the bishop of Rome at times of crisis in the ecclesial communion

23. In the first millennium, the Church experienced many times when ecclesial communion was in peril, as, for example, when the definitions of Nicaea were challenged by the condemnation of orthodox bishops at certain councils held in the fourth century in the East, and when the Christological formula of Chalcedon was challenged by monophysitism and the “Henotikon” (which occasioned the Acacian schism) in the fifth century, and then by monoenergism and monothelitism in the seventh century, and also at the time of the iconoclast crisis in the eighth and ninth centuries. Catholics and Orthodox both recognise the importance of the role played by the bishop of Rome at these times.

24. In fact, from the fourth century onwards, there was a growing recognition of Rome as a centre to which appeals or requests for help in various circumstances might be directed from the whole Christian world.  In 339-40 Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, made an appeal to Pope Julius. In the words of the Pope, quoted by Athanasius, “He [Athanasius] came not of his own accord, but he was summoned by letter from us” (Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 29; cf 20, 33, and 35). Thus it appears that Julius did not simply respond to an appeal from Athanasius, but himself took the initiative in ‘summoning” the bishop of Alexandria. Here, then, the role of the pope seems to have been more than simply appellate.

25. Requests for help made to Rome in moments of crisis were sometimes accompanied by similar requests to other major ecclesiastical sees. John Chrysostom (404), for example, appealed not only to Rome but also to the bishops of Milan and Aquileia. Thus, action taken by the bishop of Rome was intended to be coordinated, in a conciliar spirit, with action by other major sees. Moreover, the initiatives of the bishop of Rome tended generally to be undertaken within the framework of the Roman synod and usually referred to that synod. From this point of view also, they therefore had a conciliar or synodal character. For instance, in correspondence during the Photian dispute, bishops of Rome emphasised that they had taken their decisions in accordance with the rules or canons, and synodically (“regulariter et synodaliter” or “canonice et synodaliter”).

26. The procedure to be followed in appeals to Rome was elaborated by the Council of Sardica (342-3, canons 3-5). There it was laid down that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the pope, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops of the dioceses adjoining that of the condemned bishop. If so requested by the condemned bishop, the pope might also send representatives to assist the bishops of the neighbouring dioceses. Though it was originally intended to be an ecumenical council, Sardica was actually a local council held in the West. Its canons were accepted in the East at the Council in Trullo (692).

27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a “co-operator” or “fellow worker” (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be “in agreement” (symphronountes);
– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole.
Though the role of the pope does receive specific mention here, there are different interpretations of the terms, symphonia, synergos and symphronountes. This matter needs further study.

28. It can be affirmed that in the first millennium the bishop of Rome, as first (protos) among the patriarchs, exercised a role of coordination and stability in questions relating to faith and communion, in fidelity to the tradition and with respect for conciliarity.

The influence of non–theological factors

29. During the first millennium, a number of factors which were not directly theological played a considerable role in relations between the Churches of the East and West, and influenced the understanding and exercise of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. These factors were of various kinds, for instance, political, historical, socio-economic, and cultural.

30. As indications of relevant factors, the following may be stated:
– the terminology, mentality and ideology of the Roman Empire;
– the fluctuations of imperial politics with regard to the life of the Church;
– the transfer of the capital of the Empire to the East;
– the decline and fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and the consequences this had for the political and cultural equilibrium between East and West;
– the progressive cultural distancing between East and West, leading to mutual ignorance, estrangement and misunderstanding;
– the Muslim expansion in the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, as well as in the regions of North Africa and Spain;
– the rise of the Western Empire of Charlemagne;
– the personal influence of certain historical figures.
An awareness of the non–theological factors at work in the relations between Christian East and West and an appreciation of how they have interacted with various theological factors enable a deeper understanding of the life and faith of the Church, and in particular of the diversities that developed between East and West.