I don't think you read the entire essay by Fr. Schmemann. The ideas you quoted are Fr. Schmemann's description of a Roman idea of primacy. He begins the very next section by stating:
"Is this ecclesiology acceptable from the Orthodox point of view? The question may seem naive. The Orthodox Church has rejected as heretical the Roman claims and thus has implicitly condemned the ecclesiology which supports them."
Right. As far as I can tell, both Afanassieff and Schemann agree that if the Church is a single body, then it must have a supreme visible head in the form of a universal bishop.
But they reject the idea that the Church is a single body. Instead they focus on the local church as the fullness of the Church. But the problem is that individual Bishops are fallible.
Also, I would like to know if ROCOR, for example, is in communion with all the other Orthodox churches.
Furthermore he goes on to explain what primacy is:
"The idea of primacy thus excludes the idea of jurisdictional power but implies that of an "order" of Churches which does not subordinate one Church to another, but which makes is possible for all Churches to live together this life of all in each and of each in all thus by fulfilling the mystery of the Body of Christ, the fullness "filling all in all."
Yes. It seems like both Schmemann and Afanassieff are very big on rejecting any kind of supremacy--or "jurisdictional power"-- in the Church.
But then why not take it further and deny the Church law authority of the Bishops themselves?
I read this essay at the Greek Orthodox Archidiocese of America which said that the idea of Canon law is a legal system which is historically concieved as the foundation of the church. But he (Rev. Emannuel Clapsis) indicates that Schmemann rejects this canon law system (as I understand it).
Here is the exact quotation from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America site:
"If primacy is defined as a form of power, then we encounter the question of whether in the Orthodox church there is a power superior to that of a bishop, i.e., a power over the bishop, and hence the church of which he is head. Theologically and ecclesiologically the answer must be an unconditional no: there is no power over the bishop and his church. In the canonical and historical life of the Church, however, such supreme power not only exists but is conceived as the foundation of the Church; it is the basis of its canonical system. According to Father Schmemann, this reflects the alienation of canonical tradition from ecclesiology and its reduction to canon law in the context of which the life of the Church came to be expressed in juridical terms.[36]"
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523
As I understand it, Rev. Emmanuel Clapsis (at the Greek Orthodox site) also acknowledged that the Orthodox aren't sure what "primacy" even means. That is admitted, I believe, somewhere in this same article.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523
That would seem to fit with the Orthodox idea that even "Ecumenical Councils" are not infallible until they are affirmed by "the whole Church"(i.e. those that are correct in their belief).
Additionally in regard to a Eucharistic understanding vs. one of universal jurisdiction he explains:
This concept of primacy, as has been said already, is rooted in the "eucharistic ecclesiology" which we believe to be the source of Orthodox canonical and liturgical tradition. As result of its distortion or, at least, "metamorphosis" there appeared another type of ecclesiology which we have termed "universal." It leads necessarily to the understanding and practice of primacy as "supreme power" and therefore, to anuniversal bishop as source and foundation of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical structure. The Orthodox Church has condemned this distortion in its pure and explicit Roman Catholic form.
Right. Again, they are rejecting the idea of a universal Church. Or in other words, the idea that there is a "whole Church", composed of "parts".
I did find a thread from 2002 in an old forum which also mistakes Fr. Schmemann's thesis and even uses the phrase that he had to "work around" certain issues. I suggest you stop using Joe Gallegos and other cut and paste experts and start reading the entire documents for yourself. It is not giving you a good picture of what is going on. If you don't have time for that, then I suggest perhaps cutting back your time here and reading their works as an alternative.
Most of what I'm reading from Schmemann and Afanassieff is from the book "the Primacy of Peter", an Orthodox book I have been trying to slowly read and process in parts since I got it from the library (until it is due for return).. The quotes I've been giving from them are all from this book, not from any Catholic apologists. That doesn't mean, however, that I've worked through the whole of their essays yet or that I understand their ideas well. Nor am I intending to give all the ideas in a given essay. But I believe my quotations or paraphrases have been accurate.
For example, the Orthodox scholar Afanassieff does really say that the Orthodox have no systematic doctrine of Church government. Afanassieff further says that for Cyprian, the Bishop of Rome is the direct successor of Peter, while the other bishops are only heirs of Peter indirectly. And Afanassieff further says that for Cyprian Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church, and the principal Church from which priestly unity takes its source.
He also says that if the Church is a single body, then it must have a supreme Bishop as its head.
As far as reading the fathers themselves, I am doing my best. I find it hard to find many of the patristic texts online (and I have a lot of trouble reading, and especially with online texts), and I don't have the money to buy the Jurgens set right now (which I want somewhat), and even if I did I'm not sure I have ability to wade through the full texts. And if I did, I don't think I would be able to type out the full quotations for others online.
In short, I'm never going to be anything close to a historian.
Peace,
Pat