Moving towards Christian convergence?

Are we moving toward a "united Christianity"? That's the assertion made by Adrian Pabst on the Guardian's  Comment is Free site. In the article, Pabst suggests that by opening a new chapter of theological engagement and concrete co-operation with Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, Pope Benedict XVI is changing the terms of debate about church reunification, leading to "the end of the Great Schism between east and west and a union of the main episcopally-based churches" - by which Pabst is referring to Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. Leaving aside the miniscule size of Anglicanism compared to Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, this does not, of, course add up to a "united Christianity".

Still, Pabst points to a visit to Rome in September by the head of the Department for External Church Affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, ând, also, a visit to Rome by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams: "Far from humiliating the primate of the Anglican Communion by parking papal tanks on the lawn at Lambeth, Benedict emphasised the importance of Anglicanism in promoting the unity of all episcopally-based Christian churches." Papst's post has in turn prompted a commentary by Austen Ivereigh (a former advisor to the Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor). Ivereigh agrees that "the chill which descended on Catholic-Orthodox relations over church properties and the Uniates seems to have thawed. Pabst is also right to point out that Metropolitan Kirill wrote a foreword to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone's recent book on Catholic social teaching -- which would have been unheard of a few years ago".  

Yet the locus of disagreement with Rome over papal  primacy remains as strong as ever. It is this which both Orthodox and Anglicans consider to be incompatible with the conciliarist forms of government they both practise.

Ivereigh notes the comments on primacy made by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his lecture during his November visit to Rome, and then goes on to link these to the debate between Joseph Ratzinger and Walter Kapser on the relation of the unviersal and the local church. Ivereigh's conclusion is that:

Papal centralism is the fruit of the Church's long battle with secularist and totalitarian states. That battle has been over since World War II. The Second Vatican Council called for collegiality, and it hasn't been implemented. As long as it isn't, the scandalous divisions in Christendom remain, and Jesus Christ's desire in John 21 "that they may be one" is frustrated.Historically, it's clear -- at least I think it is -- how this should go. Rome should become more collegial and conciliarist, and Anglicans and Orthodox should look to the Pope as the successor of Peter.But that's not going to happen as long as Rome resists "effective" -- and not just "affective" -- collegiality. That's why this isn't yet a "second spring" in relations between the three Churches, even if the worst of winter seems some way behind.

Yet, what Ivereigh doesn't draw attention to are the current discussions at the Orthodox-Roman Catholic international theological dialogue. Here a comment by Pabst is interesting in which he  highlights Benedict's suppression of the title "Patriarch of the West" not as a barrier but as a facilitator for talks with the Orthodox.

Rather than affirming absolutist papal supremacism, Benedict indicated with this act that he seeks to blend the historical primacy of the see of Rome and the pope's universal jurisdiction with that of local churches in east and west. The next step for Rome is to incorporate the Orthodox  emphasis on conciliarity as a counterweight to papal authority.

Indeed, Metropolitan John of Pergamon, the Orthodox co-chair of the international Roman Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue, has been particularly outspoken against the understanding oif the Bishop of Rome as the Patriarch of the West, saying that while this development was historically understandable it does not offer a theological solution to help convergence between East and West. Metropolitan John instead argiues for an understanding of primacy and conciliarity at all levels of the church, including at the universal level. And it is precisely this issue that is at the centre of the Ravenna document produced by the commission in 2007, and about which discussions are still continuing. But if these discussions do make significant progress, does this not also open the way to theological convergence with Anglican perspectives such as those articulated by the Archbishop of Canterbury?