www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West primacy with bishop or his see?

In discussions on the Primacy of Rome I have often heard Orthodox claim that a given bishop doesn't have the ranking within the church but rather it's his see.

But this doesn't seem to agree with actual Orthodox practice. For instance,
my own Patriarch (Ignatius IV of Antioch) moved his see to Damascus but yet he still retains the title and ranking of Patriarch of Antioch. Now I can guess some of the reasons he did this were problems with Muslims or perhaps for other reasons. The reasons aren't important - the fact is that he moved the see and himself with it and thereby retained his ranking within Orthodoxy.

The Antiochian Archdiocese's primate is Met. Philip and his headquarters is in NJ. But his status as the Metropolitan has absolutley nothing to do with the location of his HQ - he could just as easily move it to NC and still be the primate of this archdiocese.

My point: we Orthodox claim the primacy/ranking of a given bishop is derived from his see and that the bishop himself does not possess such a primacy. However the example of Patriarch Ignatius IV would seem to prove otherwise.

Thoughts? Feedback from all is solicited!

Eric (Antiochian Orthodox)

Dear Eric,

That is a fascinating question!

There were and are pressures on the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to leave Istanbul, for reasons well known to all of us, and yet he refuses for the same reason you give i.e. the geographic See itself.

"Bishop" comes from the Latin word meaning "mayor" and is therefore related to the urban context in which a bishop fulfills his pastoral duties.

Bishops were always assigned to cities or larger urban centres, as were Metropolitans, and they could not move out of their urban jurisdiction for long.

This is one argument some advance to show that St Peter, while establishing bishops for Antioch and Rome, was never one himself (although he had all episcopal powers) since if he were a bishop, he could not move around to evangelize as he did.

I think whether or not Metropolitan Philip can go here or there depends on the extend of his actual jurisdiction as such - his jurisdiction extends beyond that of a "simple bishop"

(Vladyka, you know I mean this in the very best of terms!)

Sorry, Eric, but I know my bishop lurks around here - and elsewhere at times .

It is an ongoing argument amongst Greek Orthodox theologians whether His All-Holiness the Patriarch of New Rome would be breaking tradition by moving out of the City of Constantine and how this would impact his authority.

Frankly, I find the arguments against his moving out unconvincing (i.e. how this move would impact his Primacy of Honour).

I think he can be able to exercise his role anywhere within the Orthodox oikumene which is today world-wide.

Alex

>It is an ongoing argument amongst Greek Orthodox theologians whether His All-Holiness the >Patriarch of New Rome would be breaking tradition by moving out of the City of Constantine >and how this would impact his authority.

It is my opinion that other Patriarchs who are not happy with the Ecumenical Patriarch might use such a change of location as an excuse to no longer follow him or recognize his position of primacy (no matter how one defines that). And within Orthodoxy there would be no way of dealing with such a crisis since there would be no recognized authority to set things right.
So he stays there in Constantinople even though it's perfectly obvious that by moving to the US he would be moving to the most powerful and influential nation in the world and thereby maximizing his exposure/"being at the center of things".

I have another thought, too... I wonder if the Orthodox perspective on these things is really meant to deny primacy to an individual so they can attack the idea of the Pope having primacy in his person. This might be a way for them to argue against the papal claims? (even though for the foreseeable future the Pope isn't going to leave Rome). Just a thought.

Eric

Dear Eric,

Well, you've obviously given this topic much deep thought!

I think there may be a coalition forming around the recognition of the Moscow Patriarch as a kind of international First among Equals, given the size of the ROC and its influence.

And just as the St Andrew legend is at the base of the claims of Constantinople, so too is there a St Andrew legend at Kyiv which was later taken over by the Moscow Patriarch.

And then there is the matter of the "Third Rome" - so Moscow is well positioned to fill any vacuum left by problems at Constantinople.

I don't think it is a question of "Primacy or no primacy" but "New Rome vs. Third Rome" for the Primacy of Honour in Orthodoxy.

The Ecumenical Patriarch does not have the same sort of jurisdictional powers that the Pope of Rome has (and Rome originally modeled itself after the Pope of Alexandria - the first Patriarch to declare 'immediate jurisdiction' over every parish and priest in Christian Africa).

But when a canon is clearly broken, the EP is quick to excommunicate and restore order otherwise as happened with the Jerusalem Patriarch a while ago.

Although Constantinople has tried to establish itself as a world-wide Orthodox Christian centre, Moscow is way ahead of it in this respect.

Western canonists tend to see Constantinople in terms of its urban significance as such.

Orthodoxy and the entire Church before the split, in fact, always saw Primacy at Rome largely because of religious rather than secular reasons i.e. the place of St Peter and Paul' martyrdom, Rome as a Christian centre etc.

When the capital of the Roman Empire moved to New Rome or the City of Constantine, the Church's centre, in effect, moved there for the whole Church, East and West, even though Old Rome, a shadow of its former self, kept its titular primacy of honour.

The Muscovite Tsars were only following what seemed to be an historically conditioned pattern when they saw Constantinople fall after the debacle at the Council of Florence where the Greek bishops signed a union with Rome in exchange for military assistance that never really came.

To the Russians, the Greeks were proven "heretics" and God punished Constantinople by allowing the Turks to plunder it.

It was clear that Moscow Church and the Muscovite Tsar were to become the new realities behind the Byzantine two-headed eagle . . .

And who knows how things will turn out in this respect?

Alex

What happened with the Patriarch of Jerusalem?

Dear Qathuliqa,

He repented and was accepted back by the EP.

The normal term for repentance is sixty days, I believe, after which excommunication sets in . . .

My former bishop got miffed at a priest over the controversy involving our former Apostolic Administrator who was trying to take over from him.

The priest suggested something along the lines of the bishop somehow being tempted by the devil or something disgusting like that.

The bishop publicly dressed the priest down and gave him sixty days to think it over and publicly apologise before he would consider "further ecclesial action."

I think Vladyka should have thrown the book at him.

We haven't had a good excommunication/defrocking in a long, long time .

Alex

But what did he do that caused the Ecumenical Patriarch to excommunicate him in the first place? I thought the Patriarch of Jerusalem was supposed to be one of those really Orthodox bishops who only follows the old calendar and stuff like that?

Alex,

Your last reply to my post suggests that you see primacy as only a political reality -- something that can be "taken" if another see gains enough influence. This would seem to be against the Catholic notion that Rome has primacy by divine right.

Do you value union with Rome only because Rome is the only international "player" that can function as a head of worldwide christendom or because you see in the Pope a divinely ordered head of the universal church or both?

Eric

Dear Eric,

Both.

Politics does come into the Church - and I don't see anything wrong with that. As long as there are humans, there will be politics.

But with Moscow, it isn't only about politics. The "Third Rome" title that it appropriated is more than just a political thing.

It is actually based on the tradition of St Andrew at Kyiv and Moscow's Patriarchs see themselves as inheritors of that tradition today.

And it is a tradition that Rome itself recognizes in Moscow, as documents I read especially in 1988 for the millennium of Christianity suggest.

Orthodoxy today is largely divided into "Slavic" and "Hellenic" Orthodoxy (there are others, but these are the two prominent ones that exercise real leadership).

The Russians lead under the Slavic banner and they are strong enough to make a serious claim to primacy - they have the requisite claims to apostolic foundation. But I doubt if Hellenic Orthodoxy will recognize Moscow ahead of Constantinople.

While Rome has lost and then gained in strength, fluctuating over time, its claims to universal primacy, recognized by other Churches throughout the world, have remained constant.

Apart from the sticky issues of jurisdiction and the like, I have yet to see anyone, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and even Protestant (those Protestants for whom bishops are important) ever question Rome's Primacy, although they argue about its historic and contemporary forms.

And that is where I'm at.

I acknowledge Rome's universal Primacy. I have and will continue to defend the rights of my Particular Church to self-government against the encroachments of Rome, Constantinople or Moscow for that matter.

And I pray for a union of the Churches that reflects the Primacy of the first Millennium, agreeable to all, and, most of all, to Christ Who wills unity for us.

Alex

Dear Qathuliqa,

I forgot which canon(s) the Patriarch violated - but the matter was resolved in short order.

Perhaps someone here remembers what that ecclesial kerfuffle was about?

Was ouzo involved?

Alex

Better the ouzo, than the uzi.


John

I think the answer might be that the "see" is not simply the urban center where the bishop takes his title from, but the whole particular church. The See of Rome is the Church of the Roman Diocese. The See of Antioch is the Church of Anitoch, even including Damascus, the Roman See of Chicago includes Evanston, etc.

The boundries are adjustable and certain sees (Catholic military ordinate, the bishops for migratory Cossacks or Gyspies, etc that follow people rather than geogrpahic, are also examples of a economia in this application.

Dear Axios,

An excellent point!

The outline you give is precisely the way in which the Roman Pontiff, over time, appropriated additional jurisdiction. He was originally Bishop only for Rome and still has that position.

When the Pope beatified a married couple (last year?) he did so as "Bishop of Rome" and so the veneration of that couple is ONLY for the City of Rome itself!

The Popes later became Metropolitans of the wider Roman Province in Italy and were addressed as "Your Beatitude" only and didn't have jurisdiction over all of Italy until they became "Primates of Italy" and then "Patriarch of the West."

It was due to this latter title that the Popes felt justified in suppressing the Rites of other formerly Particular Western Churches and imposing the Rite of the City of Rome.

Alex

"Bishop" comes from the Latin word meaning "mayor" and is therefore related to the urban context in which a bishop fulfills his pastoral duties. -Orthodox Catholic

Dear Alex,

Not to get nit-picky or distract from your main point, but I thought the word "Bishop" was derived from the Greek "Episcopos." Later in France or England it became "Biscop," and finally became the modern English word "Bishop." Episcopos, as I understand it means "overseer." I think your point still stands. But I just wanted to mention that I think the word is derived from the Greek rather than the Latin.

This is similar to the word "Priest" which derived from an abbreviation of the Greek word "Presbuteros" meaning "elder." Later it was abbreviated in French to "Prest" and finally we got the modern English "Priest."

This is ironic when you consider that the word "Priest" derives from a New Testament Greek word. Yet when we look at our modern English Bibles the only time Priest is used is in reference to the Old Testament religious leaders who offered sacrifice (who were actually called something other than "Presbuteros," e.g. "Cohen" in Hebrew). Whereas now the New Testament leaders are called "Elders" in English translations. Perhaps this is a sign of the profound influence of Protestantism on the English speaking peoples?

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

As a diplomaed linguist, I came to tears over Der-Ghazarian's post. (Sniff, sniff...no one likes academic linguists anymore.)

Epi-skopos is indeed Greek: epi- meaning "over", and skopos (like 'scope') meaning "see". So: "overseer". The bishop's jurisdiction was over his own diocese, generally understood as geographic territory. When super-bishops were established ('Arch' bishops) they ruled their own territory, but were also the 'overseers' for the other dioceses in their enlarged, metro-politan (Greek: 'central city') regions.

Rome enjoyed primacy because of Sts. Peter and Paul and their martyrdom; when the secular authorities moved the capital to Byzantium, the question remained: did the 'ecclesiastical' title of "New Rome" validly move the ecclesiastical title from Rome to Constantinople? For me, the answer is "no". The secular capital is of no ecclesiastical relevance.

As for the Patriarch of Constantinople, the same is true. He is the Arch-Bishop/Metropolitan of his area and dependencies, as well as Patriarch of the Greek-speaking church. He is, to be sure, the ecclesiastical 'overseer' of the Greek-speaking Church as well as the geographic region of Greece and Asia Minor. As did the Antiochenes, when Antioch diminished to a village, the Patriarch still held the title of Antioch even though he lived in Damascus. Should the Ecumenical Patriarch be forced to move to Patmos or Disney World, he would still be the Metropolitan Archbishop and Patriarch of Constantinople. And, as such, would still hold the Primacy of Honor in the Byzantine East.

I have absolutely NO truck whatsoever with this Muscovite pipe-dream of "New Rome". They are clearly Johnny-come-lately's who wish to cash in on their 'long-term' Orthodoxy (oh, please! Did they never hear of Kiev?!?!? Oh, I forgot, Kiev is RUSSIAN and both subject to and a dependency of the political hegemony of Moscow. If I had the guts -and the $$$-, I'd send a case of Ex-Lax to Alexei and tell him to have a few every day.)

Could there conceiveably be a new "major Patriarchate" for the Byzantine Church? Sure. But it cannot EVER supplant the Patriarchates that have come before. The ancient order is clear: Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria (not-in-Virginia) and Constantinople. There are, to be sure, 'minor-Patriarchates' in Sophia, Bucharesti, Venice, etc., and these hold their positions of respect. So, if the Russians decide to push their role as "major Patriarchate", it MUST come from their status as a center of Orthodoxy (and THAT is a real question!) and their status MUST be recognized by ALL of Orthodoxy (and probably the Western Church as well).

So: it's the geographic location of the See, and the See's role within the complex of all the neighboring dioceses. And even if the city crumbles to dust and the bishop moves to some place with running water and a viable market for food, the ranking still remains.

Blessings!