The Churches of the East and West were indeed essentially one until 1054. However that date - which marks the mutual excommunications by the Papal legate and the Patriarch of Constantinople - is merely a tool for having a perspective of history. The sack of Constantinople and particularly the desecration of the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia by the Crusaders of 1204 did much more damage to Church relations.

The excommunications were mutually lifted in 1966, and Pope John-Paul II wisely apologized for the immense injury done by Western Christians (who did not thereby act as Christians) in 1204. In fact there has been a great deal of interaction - surprisingly much of it positive - throughout the ages. The process of dialogue goes on. We trust the Holy Spirit will guide us in restoring one day soon the visible unity that existed prior to the sad events mentioned above.

The question of the position of the Bishop of Rome is certainly crucial to that restoration. The Orthodox Church firmly adheres to a eucharistic ecclesiology (view of the nature of the Church) that says that the Church is fully present everywhere that the Eucharist is celebrated by or under the authority of a Bishop who is in communion with all other Orthodox (should not be read simplistically as a denominational distinction) Bishops.

Our One Head is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He is always present in the Church and does not need a vicar or substitute. A Bishop, or a priest under the Bishop's authority, does indeed preside over the Eucharist, but this is not because Jesus is somehow absent or "away in Heaven".

The Orthodox profess willingness to accord the Bishop of Rome a primacy of honour - of the sort that we now give the Bishop of Constantinople who is called "first among equals". This does not and would not amount to universal jurisdiction. It is quite acceptable to consider him Peter's successor just as the Bishop of Constantinople is the successor of Andrew the First-Called (who actually brought Peter to the Lord).

On the other hand, the Orthodox interpret the Lord's words about the Rock on which the Church stands, to mean the profession of faith that Peter gave: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

We could say that Peter embodied that profession of faith. He also wavered in the face of the threat of being crucified together with the Master on the night He was betrayed. Then he repented and, in his Letter in the New Testament, showed the authenticity of his repentance by proclaiming that he had betrayed Him.

Peter thus serves as an example of faith, hope and repentance. Quite unlike worldly leaders who go to great lengths to conceal their failings and present only the most positive of images to the world.

The Orthodox view the position that the Church is literally built upon the authority of the successor of Peter as unacceptable. We do, as I noted, accept the importance of the office of Bishops, but the "keys" which the Lord gave Peter are held to be similarly given to all Bishops.

When He appeared to the Apostles (whose successors Bishops are held to be) He said to all of them - not just Peter : "Receive the Holy Spirit. What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven".

This does not mean that the Church stands upon the authority of Bishops and Priests. In fact there is only one Priest and that is Jesus our Lord Himself - and He shares His Priesthood in a special way with Bishops, Priests and Deacons. But He also confers the dignity of the Royal Priesthood upon all God's people - all who are baptized, who believe, who live the Holy Mysteries, and who by His mercy embody His love and kindness to the world around until He returns.

I am surprised to be so long-winded about this. I hope this has been helpful. God bless you! May you always walk in the way of service, peace and the infinite joy of the risen and forever-reigning Lord!