I think Akismet ate your first, unfinished comment, so I’ll just respond to the one posted here.

I don’t see AD 1000 as a terminus, and neither would Archbishop Elias and Ratzinger, I think. The first millennium is used as a basis for examining the question of papal primacy because the Churches East and West were in communion for at least that long (to say nothing of the acts of communion that continued centuries after). As such, the primacy which Rome exercised during that time can be used as a model for adjusting the present state of affairs.

The way I see it, there is no slippery slope, only a very large can of worms. If no ecumenical council has occurred since the separation of the Churches (which Ratzinger, in another essay, dates to Rome’s alliance with the Franks), then the respective theological developments in the synods of the East and the West must, it seems to me, be reaccessed by the reunited Church. This doesn’t mean that we will be forced into an infinite doctrinal regression or that all theological developments after the Schism are to be rejected—only that we have a lot of rethinking and reevaluating to do when the Church is one again.

Only the West has convened synods which it considers ecumenical. Though the East has held various councils since the Schism, none of these are purported to be ecumenical. From what I understand, this does not imply that the Orthodox do not regard their Eastern synods as authoritative or binding, only that these do not carry the full weight of an ecumenical council. But perhaps an Orthodox reader can weigh in on this discussion.

W.H.