Yeah, let's stop acting like it's just a few byzcath forum dwellers agitating and twisting the meaning around for their own agendas. It's a key ecumenical concept, no matter if Cardinal Ratzinger later desired to unring the bell.

It's a key ecumenical concept, no matter if Cardinal Ratzinger later desired to unring the bell.

There is no way to ignore his latter clarifications because his previous statement is more advantageous to ones postion, especially now that he is the Bishop of Rome. His thoughts on primacy are very important.To ignore them is intellectually dishonest, imho.

That is not to say that the ideal of the orginal proposal isn't a good one ( I think it is) and should be a starting point in Ecumenical discussion but one can't say that Pope Benedcit holds/teaches the origial proposals view because his later writings cleary clarify his position- which is the opposite of the orginal "Ratzinger Proposal."

... they have grown out of hand to the point at which councils and the dogmatic decisions of the second millennium are supposed not to be regarded as ecumenical but as particular developments in the Latin Church, constituting its private property in the sense of “our two traditions”. But this distorts the first attempt to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences. For this way of looking at it actually implies a denial of the existence of the Universal Church in the second millennium, while tradition as a living, truth-giving power is frozen at the end of the first. This strikes at the very heart of the idea of Church and tradition, because ultimately such an age test dissolves the full authority of the Church, which is then left without a voice at the present day. Moreover, one might well ask, in reply to such an assertion, with what right people’s consciences, in such a particular Church as the Latin Church would then be, could be bound by such pronouncements. What once appeared as truth would have to be characterized as mere custom.

What's wrong with the Zoghby proposal, for instance: "... an implicit denial of the existence of the Universal Church in the second millennium, while tradition as a living, truth-giving power is frozen at the end of the first

I ,and many, fully believe[d] that “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium” but does Rome?

Yeah, let's stop acting like it's just a few byzcath forum dwellers agitating and twisting the meaning around for their own agendas.

It is really essential to see a translation of the original. Interpretive claims such as:

etc. are just that, interpretations. As such they also are given to apply current ecclesiological terminology along with some presuppositions, anachronistically, to a 1595 document.

It's easy for us to look down our long nose of 400+ years of history and find fault with a situation that we did not experience. It is fashionable for today's bandwagon to reject and condemn the Unia outright, but I would suggest that it was a viable option for its time and should be looked upon now not as simply wrong but dated relative to the present.

I'm very interested in your analysis and any translations you might offer... <hint, hint> ...

I don't know if Fr. Hryniewicz's book has been mentioned here before. I'm sure his views will not be accepted by all but I think there may be some worth in looking over his interpretation for this discussion.

I am working through the Latin, but it has been some years since I've read anything so complex in Latin so it is taking me some time.

5. The celebration of the Union of Brest should be lived and interpreted in the light of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. This is perhaps the most important aspect for understanding the significance of the anniversary.

It is well known that the Second Vatican Council made a special point of studying the mystery of the Church, and that one of the most important documents which it produced was the Constitution Lumen gentium. Precisely because of this detailed study the Council takes on a particular ecumenical significance. This is confirmed by the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, which presents a very enlightened programme of activities to be carried out in the work for Christian unity. Thirty years after the conclusion of the Council, I wished to reiterate this programme with my Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, published on 25 May of this year.9 This Encyclical traces the ecumenical progress which has been made since the Second Vatican Council and, at the same time, looking to the third millennium of the Christian era, it seeks to open up new possibilities for the future.

Putting the celebrations of the coming year in the context of a reflection on the Church, as proposed by the Council, I am anxious above all to encourage a deeper understanding of the proper role which the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is called to play today in the ecumenical movement.

6. There are those who see the existence of the Eastern Catholic Churches as a difficulty on the road of ecumenism. The Second Vatican Council did not fail to face this problem, indicating possibilities for solutions both in the Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis redintegratio, and in the Decree Orientalium Ecclesiarum, which was specifically dedicated to these Churches. Both documents reflect a spirit of ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Churches not in full communion with the See of Rome, in such a way that the richness which the other Churches share with the Catholic Church can be appreciated, and that the quest for an ever fuller and deeper communion may be founded on this shared richness. In fact,"ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity".10

To promote dialogue with the Byzantine Orthodox Churches, there was set up, after the Second Vatican Council, a special Mixed Commission which also included among its members representatives of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In various documents efforts have been made to arrive at a deeper and greater understanding between the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Catholic Churches, efforts which have not been without positive results. In my Apostolic Letter Orientale lumen11 and in my Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint12 I have already written of the elements of sanctification and truth13 common to Eastern and Western Christianity, and of the desirable path to follow in the search for full communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, in the light of the greater ecclesiological understanding brought about by the Second Vatican Council: "Today we know that unity can be achieved through the love of God only if the Churches want it together, in full respect for the traditions of each and for necessary autonomy. We know that this can take place only on the basis of the love of Churches which feel increasingly called to manifest the one Church of Christ, born from one Baptism and from one Eucharist, and which want to be sisters".14 The deepening of knowledge of the doctrine on the Church, brought about by the Council and continuing since the Council, has marked out what can be called a new path on the journey to unity: the path of the dialogue of truth nourished and sustained by the dialogue of charity (cf. Eph 4: 15).

Just doing some research online and I came across some material by a Polish Catholic theologian Fr. Waclaw Hryniewicz. One text of his online is The Challenge of Our Hope (2007). I found a 2008 news item regarding him online here.

Part 3 (Chapters 13 to 18) is entitled:

THE COST OF UNITY: CATHOLIC-ORTHODOX DIALOGUE

Magnus Dominus is discussed in Chapter 16.

All in all, there's a lot of interesting reading which I'm just beginning to digest in chapters 13 to 18 of this book. From what I can see, he is a supporter of the Zoghby Initiative, it being discussed in Chapter 18.

It appears the book can also be read at Google Books here .

I don't know if Fr. Hryniewicz's book has been mentioned here before. I'm sure his views will not be accepted by all but I think there may be some worth in looking over his interpretation for this discussion.

I think it is pretty clear that ecumenism will only really advance when the medieval Roman universalist ecclesiology is definitively overcome.