www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Papal Authority

Dear Friends,

Following from a point raised by Memo, I thought that this would be a good topic for a new thread.

What was the relationship between Rome and the Eastern Churches in the first millennium?

Did Rome exercise a primacy of jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches before 1054 AD that is analogous to Rome's jurisdiction over the Eastern Catholic Churches of today?

Alex

Since you asked...

Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement discusses this issue, as well as others, in his book, You are Peter, published in 2003. The book is a thoughtful response to the Holy Father's request for dialogue on the Petrine primacy. This request for dialogue was contained in the encyclical Ut unum sint.

Dear Father Deacon,

Thank you!

I have that book, but have yet to read it.

If you allow me to take some time off from the Forum to review it, then I'll get to it . . .

Alex

I've read Clement's book and have a review of it coming out soon. It's an interesting book. If you are expecting a systematic theological treatise, or comprehensive historical examination, forget it. It's much more ecclectic than that. And ignore the epilogue, which is bizarre.

Hi,

Have you read this book:

Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church
by Stephen K. Ray

I think it contains a detailed analysis of several documents and if Mr. Ray's interpretation is correct, they would show how the Petrine ministry was understood and exercised in the Early Church.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo,

Yes, a great book - but the interpretation is one that is open to debate.

Alex

My humble (if you will take it as such) reply:

I believe Rome has ALWAYS understood her prerogatives, even if the other Patriarchates did not. I also believe that other Patriarchates accepted that primacy many times in the united Church, and in other times, they did not. There is the question of whether political expediency entered the equation regarding acceptance or non-acceptance of Rome's primacy. Historical arguments can be generated for both sides. For example, I think an honest examination of canon 23(?) of Chalcedon shows that the disregard for Rome's prerogative in this instance was due to political expediency rather than canonical or theological grounds (of course, my opinion may be prejudiced by the fact that I am SOOO impressed that Rome stood up for Alexandria's ranking during the entire debate). But an argument for the other aside: The (failed) unions at Florence and Lyon were certainly spurred on by political expediency rather than a true recognition of the papal prerogative (not denying that there have been unions based on an honest avowal by Eastern Christians of the papal prerogative).

Rome, via a canon of Sardica, has appellate jurisdiction over bishops, though indeed, another canon (i.e. from Carthage) grants DIRECT jurisdiction of priests WITHIN a See to the bishop of that See, apart from Rome's "interference." I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the seventh ecumencial Council approved both canons generically.

I think more can be said, but I am at a loss right now. I write better in response to ideas, rather than generating my own.

Blessings,

Marduk

Seventh ecumenical council? Ooops! I meant, what 99.99% of the members here regard as the seventh ecumenical council.

Dear Mardukm,

There can be no doubt that Rome as first among equals was accepted throughout the first millennium.

And Orthodoxy STILL asserts that once Rome "returns" it can have that same primacy.

The main reason why the East won't accept a primacy of jurisdiction is that it upsets the normal course of events where a bishop (even though a Pope) could overreach his own episcopal and patriarchal jurisdiction and venture to get involved in another jurisdiction.

To chastise for breaking the canons etc., that is something altogether different.

Rome AND Constantinople AND Alexandria were all well known for having an inflated understanding of their leadership roles that went beyond the ministerial/sacerdotal model of service to the Church.

For example, Meyendorff points out how when Pope Honorius was condemned in relation to the Monothelite heresy, his immediate successors continued to maintain that the popes of Rome had never erred - and this even though successive popes until the twelfth century had to renew the condemnation against Honorius! Meyendorff said that the East regarded such as pretentious on the part of Rome.

And an ecumenical Council, I think it was the sixth but I don't remember, actually censured Rome for annulling the fast of Wednesday (it was placed on Saturday).

In that case, the Roman pope who did that broke with the canons of the Church, including and especially one of the 85 Apostolic Canons that specifically legislated Wednesdays and Fridays as fast days and FORBADE fasting on Saturdays (save for Holy Saturday).

So the Ecumenical Council clearly didn't look to Rome as an authority above the canons and above its own authority at all as seen in how it censured the pope in the same way it could have censured any other patriarch or bishop or priest for breaking the canons.

No one, however, questioned Rome's primacy of honour, especially at the table of an Ecumenical Council, to be sure. But jurisdiction was not a precipitating factor in the schism of 1054 AD at all - other matters of faith were.

The later RC ecclesiology basically saw the Pope as the chief bishop with the world as his diocese.

The East adhered to the holistic view that saw the whole Church contained in the part, wherever the bishop and the Apostolic faith and Sacraments were maintained, confessed and celebrated.

These two quite different ecclesiologies not only figure in our understanding of the role of the Pope today - but also in how we interpret the history of the papacy.

Alex

Why do people continue to ignore the fact that the "condemnation of Honorius" was a censure for his inaction in the face of the Monothelite heresy, not a censure for promoting the Monothelite heresy, which he did not do.

Peter has never erred in promulgating dogma. That is what infallibility teaches. Many Popes have "erred" by omission or other ambiguous action. Honorius is one of them.

LT

I agree that Latin ecclesiology must be toned down if it regards the Pope as the bishop of the whole world.

I submit that the language of Rome has partly been conditioned by the fact that she has jurisdiction over the largest of the Patriarchates, and is, geographically speaking, the most "universal" of the Patriarchates. When Rome says, "the whole world," she can speak literally to that effect. She has also been conditioned by the fact that she has been alone in her hegemony as sole Patriarch of "the West," whereas the East and the near-East have had several Patriarchs for "the East." Maybe Rome needs to learn to live with the reality of multiple Patriarchs - it needs to get rid of its neurotically "universal" mentality and be more aware of the local Church. At the same time, however, Orthodoxy needs to let go of its neurotically local mentality, and be more aware of the universal character of the Church. The juridictional squabbles to which Orthodoxy is so prone is as much a sore wound to the body of Christ as is a mentality that subjugates all Christianity under one visible head.

But if we must be canonically proper, then the East and near-East must agree that Rome has APPELLATE jurisdiction in any local See (as far as bishops are concerned, that is). Will our hierarchs be true to their word that we must live according to the canons? Will they allow Rome this much?

Now, APPELLATE jurisdiction is not the same as IMMEDIATE jurisdiction, the latter being the wording of Vatican I (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, as I usually am). But the question of jurisdiction seems to me to be a CANONICAL issue, and not theological. Since canons are not infallible (though as Alex once rightly commented, the East has a tendency to dogmatize canons, which I think is wrong), Rome can change its position from "immediate" to "appellate" without doing harm to the dogma of infallibility.

Blessings,

Marduk

Hi,

Regarding your distinction between the doctrines of papal universal jurisdition and papal infallibility, you are absolutely correct. They are two separate doctrtines.

Your classification of papal universal jurisdiction as a matter of canon law, I am not so sure. Vatican I seems to indicate the contrary.

Although the individual acts of jurisdictional authority from the Pope would be acts of canon law in which the Pope may err, the idea that the Pope has authority to perform this acts anywhere towards anyone may still be a matter of doctrine, and if so, a matter of Divine Revelation.

And yes, Vatican I's word is "Immediate". Mediation by appellation is a good counter example, but not the only possible one. There are other forms of mediation of authority, none of which are required by the Pope, according to Vatican I, to excercise his full authority over the whole Church.

Shalom,
Memo,

Dear LT,

Honorius may not have been an outright heretic, but he was implicated in heresy - for which the Roman Church itself not only condemned him, but had his successors until the twelfth century repeat the condemnation against him.

If Honorius wasn't a heretic, in your view, then the Roman Church must have been in error for a few hundred years for condemning him.

In addition, while not condemning this pope, Pope Liberius was not givent he honours of a saint for his weakness in the face of adversity by the Church of Rome.

However, the Eastern Church has him in its calendar as "Pope Saint Liberius."

What is more, St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine actually established that should a Pope speak heresy (and he admitted the possibility that this could happen) then, in such a case, he would no longer be Pope and would have to be deposed by the Church.

And, he said, if a Pope tried to fight against the Church (!) then Catholics would have the responsibility to oppose him etc.

And the Catholic Church, in canonizing him, did not find his words in this respect to be offensive or wrong.

In addition, there were popes like Pope Alexander VI who were not worthy at all of the Chair of Peter.

Alex

There seems to be some discussion as to the exact wording of what Vatican I said about the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome. Here is what the Council said:

Jason

When I discussed "appellate jurisdiction" and "immediate jurisdiction," I was not intending to set the two notions as opposites or incongruous. After rereading the original thread which inspired this current one, I noticed that Alex and Memo indeed discussed the concept of "immediate." I thought Memo's definition was striking, and I hope Alex feels inclined to pursue the matter.

Memo, in your reply to my post, you used the terminology "anywhere and towards anyone." I note with distinction that you did not add the word "anytime." I believe I can accept the doctrine as you expressed it - that is, sans "anytime."

Jason, thank you for posting the canon. I hope it fuels more discussion on the meaning of word "immediate."

I want to ask: is it possible to interpret "immediate jurisdiction" as "appellate jurisdiction"? I mean, the provisions of the canon Jason quoted certainly seem to be fulfilled by the notion of appellate jurisdiction.

The whole question hinges, once again, I think, on the true meaning of "immediate." Does it mean, as Alex originally suggested, that the Pope can interfere in the business of a See not his own at anytime ; or does it mean, as Memo suggested, that his authority is direct, and not mediated. If it is defined as Alex suggested, then it will definitely be unnaceptable; but if it is defined according to Memo's explanation, then there might be a chance of accord on the issue of papal jurisdiction.