Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) (Ecumenical Patriarchate) interview in the April issue of Unité des Chrétiens.
http://unitedeschretiens.fr/Metropolite-Kallistos-Ware.html
The following are some interesting observations made by the Metropolitan with respect to the Chieti document:(Google translation of the French)
As for the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, in previous years, it has addressed the crucial question between our two Churches: the position of the Bishop of Rome in world communion or if you prefer the relationship between primacy and synodality. In 2016, the dialogue produced an excellent agreement in Chieti. This document envisions the Church as the image of the Holy Trinity. It emphasizes the link between Church and Eucharist without mentioning “jurisdictional power or jurisdiction,” by adopting much more pastoral language, characteristic of the ancient Church. The Chieti’s document emphasizes that in the first millennium the pope did not exercise canonical authority over the Christian East. It admits, to reformulate it in our modern language, his universal jurisdiction of appeal. In other words, it is the possibility of the other patriarchs to turn to Rome, in case of insurmountable disputes by themselves. This document, in a surprising way, was not adopted only by the Orthodox, but also by the Catholic delegation and from the outset in a unanimous manner. Then how could we reconcile that with, for example, the decisions of Vatican Council I, establishing, among other things, a universal and ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope? For the time being, the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue has not worked on the second millennium. In my opinion, the work of the group must continue in this direction. The Vatican Council II must also be studied closely. It approaches the Chieti’s document, saying that the pope does not intervene directly in the relations of the Churches of the Christian East.
Metropolitan Kallistos also observed:
The goal of ecumenical dialogue is the restoration of Eucharistic communion. But to be able to commune together at the Lord’s table, we must share the same faith. The Eucharist cannot be separated from our faith. Also, to restore Eucharistic communion, we must seek and deepen our common paths in the common faith. However, we must add, there is a distinction between dogma and theologoumena between faith and theological opinions. One of the most important tasks of theological dialogues is to balance things out. It is a question of discerning on the one hand what is essential and irreducible in the field of faith, where our agreement is indispensable. Then we establish theological views where differences can be tolerated, as long as they do not jeopardize the common repository of faith. This is how I hear the terms “unity in diversity” or “reconciled diversity”. The bilateral committees of the theological dialogue are particularly suitable structures for this exercise. Their final goal remains the restoration of Eucharistic communion.