www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A new model of primacy?

Dear Daniel,

Yes, but both the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople have historically been seen to be equals, even though Elder Rome is First in front of New Rome.

When Pope John Paul II once welcomed the EP at Rome, the Pope (who knows his East-West history VERY well) insisted on having two episcopal thrones for himself and his guest on "equal footing."

This was not lost on ecclesial commentators - and on religious journalists.

This was, in fact, how Pope John VIII, I believe, sat with Patriarch Photios.

But again, the idea of primacy really only comes into play at Ecumenical Councils and during the praying of the diptychs - usually the Patriarchs keep their noses in their own business.

Alex

Can any of you fill me in, on how the papacy, participated and was exercised durning the 7 ancient ecumenical counciles, 'nicea, ephesus, ect..

In Christ
Daniel

Dear Daniel,

It's a very big topic, but essentially the Pope of Rome had a primacy of honour at the Councils.

The Pope of Rome (Alexandria's patriarch being the first to assume the title of "Pope") would only get involved as an arbiter when Particular Churches got into trouble with the Emperor (iconoclastic crisis) or when individual theologians were maligned unjustly (St John Chrysostom) or to end schisms (the Photian Synod).

The Pope did in fact have a role much like that of Caesar (one of his titles is Caesar's old title of "Pontifex Maximus") and one could appeal to Rome much as citizens did, and as St Paul did as a Roman Citizen.

The Pope of Rome did this even when his personal jurisdiction did not include all of Italy as yet.

Alex

Dear Daniel,

One more point I forgot to mention and that is the whole episode with Pope Honorius.

However we understand it, the fact is that Pope Honorius was condemned by a council and that this condemnation was upheld by Pope St Leo II and his successors until the 11th century.

As Pope St Leo said of Honorius: "qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est et omnes qui in suo errore defuncti sunt . . ."

And the Liber Diurnus includes this in the papal oath sworn by successors of Pope St Leo II until the 11th century:

" . . .smites with eternal anathema the originator of the new heresy, Sergius etc. together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics . . ."

Whether or not Honorius was an heretic as Pope is a separate matter - the fact is that a Council, ratified by a Pope and his immediate successors, condemned a Pope of Rome.

That is also an insight into the relationship between Popes and Councils in the first millennium.

Alex

Slava Isusu Christu!

I had a thought, could these be perhaps a new model of primacy?

Allowing the Pope of Rome to Keep his Universal Jurisdiction while only in times of a Church Crisis, but while others times he would countinue to be "First Among Equals" as Orthodoxy so rigioursly believes. This would mean to my mind that no doctrine would be getting rid of, so it wouldnt effect the Romans because we woundnt look like the Roman Church made a very big error. Could this Work?

In Christ +
Through the Prayers of the Theotokos

Dear Daniel,

If you can sell it to the Orthodox, it just might.

Good luck!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Would you buy it as an Orthodox Christian?
Sounds decent to me.

In Christ

God Let me be the Pope of Rome one day! please...

Dear Daniel,

Well, one priest-friend of mine is writing a paper on this and has this redefinition:

Papal Primacy of Honour - stays as is.

Papal Jurisdiction - only when asked to intervene by the Particular Church.

Papal Infallibility - exercised when the Pope signs the decrees of an Ecumenical Council.

Filioque - see my T-shirt.

What do you think, Big Guy?

Alex

Friends,

I'm exasperated with all this talk of primacy and honor. :rolleyes:

Jesus said let the one who wants to be first among you be the servant of all.

Service is the only way to the top in Christ's Church.

One of John Paul's titles is servant of the servants of God. Who else, East or West, has that written on their business card?

Paul

Dear Paul,

Where were you when the Ecumenical Councils needed you?

Alex

Dear Paul,

Let the congregation say, "Amen!"

Steve

Dear: Alex,

Christ Is In Our Midst!

I like your idea.

In Christ +

Dear Brothers in Christ,

First I would suggest that Orthodox Catholic has some very good points. However lets expand on them a little.
#1 Primacy of Honor (Even Orthodox theologians say that their is real authourity in the Primacy concept.) Is primacy just a moral persuation of does it carry some clout? What happens when a Patriarchate gets out of sink with the others, will he be removed from office? Who will have the "power" to do this?

#2 Papal Jurisdiction (The Pope of Rome interfered in matters of jurisdiction outside his Patriarchate very early on) Who would be the one to ask him? The Patriach? What if it were the Patiarch who was being called to account. Bishops then under his jurisdication? What about a Priest in dispute with his Bishop/Patriarch. Would it work like the military chain of command?

#3 Papal Infalibility (What about situations like the Arian heresey when most of the East followed in Heresey and it was basically the Pope of Rome who prevailed in the Orthodox faith?)

#4 Filioque - works for me that we just start using the (non filioque text of 381 ad.) as long as it is seen that the Latin Church has a valid understanding of the Filioque when this means "per filium".

Stephanos I

PS Need to think about the issues a little more and will get back to you. There are some points of theology, ecclesiology and patristics that I would like to bring into the conversation.

Greetings in Christ!

I agree with the main points raised by Alex. But as a former Anglican, now Roman Catholic, allow me to raise a cautionary note. The current crisis in Anglicanism is instructive as to the weaknesses of the primus inter pares model of primacy. The Archbishop of Canterbury, as primus of the Anglican Communion, is finding the task of maintaining unity to be difficult, if not impossible, in the face of American Episcopal intransigence. The Anglican Communion will soon cease to exist.

The current Anglican crisis serves to illustrate the need for primacy of jurisdiction as well as honor. But how should this jurisdictional primacy be exercised? Aye, there's the rub. If it is only exercised "only when asked to intervene by the Particular Church", what would we have? Suppose that the current Archbishop had such authority now, and an "appeal" had been made by American Episcopalians to resolve the impasse over the election and ordination of a noncelibate homosexual bishop. What could Canterbury do? He could denounce, he could even excommunicate, but if the Particular Church (ECUSA) refuses to acknowledge his exercise of authority in this instance, there is little else he could do. The schism between the Particular Church and the rest of the Communion would still exist.

There is a need for a jurisdictional primacy in the Church that is universal and immediate. However, I am not taking an ultramontanist stance here. I do not think that everything must be decided by the jurisdictional primate, but for the sake of unity he should have the ultimate authority to approve or disapprove of the actions of autonomous Particular Churches (e.g., the ratification of canons which apply to the Particular Church, the appointment of bishops or the final consent to such appointment, etc.).

Dave

I agree with the first part of your statement here, and in times of severe trouble agree that the Primacy gives such authority. However, I do have to disagree that the Pope needs to 'approve or disapprove' canons of Particular Churches and the appointment of their bishops on a regular basis which seems implied here. Why does Rome need to step in and give the thumbs up or down when say the Melkite Synod selects a new patriarch? Just to be sure "his guy" fills the slot? That sounds too much like the Melkite Patriarch (to continue with this example of mine) would be nothing more than a functionary of Rome's which distorts IMO Catholic ecclesiology. Why not instead simply let the Melkites select their own Patriarch, send him the letter of congrats (I forget what this is called), as was done in the early Church? Now if they decide to appoint a neo-Arian or a someone like the Episcopalian "bishop" Randy Andy, that's something else because essential truth is at stake. Ditto for the canons of Particular Churches. Why are not the Eastern Catholic Churches penning their own Codes of Canon Law instead of turning to Rome for approval for every jot and tittle? These kinds of things I think do the Holy See a disservice not only for Catholic ecclesiology, but also in keeping Orthodox suspicions alive.

Just my two cents.

Pax Christi,
John