www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West FYI: James Likoudis's New Book - Eastern Orthodoxy and the See of Peter

Originally posted by Brian:
Well, I don't think we need necessarily a model of Church which developed after Vatican I or indeed the vision of the Medieval Papacy of Innocent III or the Bull "Unam Sanctam"

My priest friend was speaking honestly, I believe, about a frustration that he had when it comes to deciphering what is "Orthodox" teaching and practice and what is not. Some things are clear, others seem to be up to interpretation. Problems arise especially in dificult areas, such as life issues, where no clear consensus exists in the canonical tradition. Often technological advances and new circumstances make it difficult for ethicists and church moral theologians to keep up. I actually see this as a strength of the Catholic magisterial model, since the Church can officially speak with a single, prophetic voice.

PAPAL PRIMACY

(Editor's note: This letter was edited for length.)

Stanford Espedal is to be commended for a fine report on the Orientale Lumen IX Conference held June 13-16 at the University of San Diego. ("East Meets in West, September 2005). The speakers at the conference who contributed to the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and the liturgical services celebrated there did much to acquaint those in attendance with the problems that impede the restoration of full communion between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the See of Peter.

The interview between Espedal and Archbishop Vsevolod of Scopelos of the Ukranian Orthodox of the Ukranian Orthodox Church of the USA was especially interesting and the hierarch's answers worthy of comment. The Archbishop, who is known for his warm sympathies for reunion with Rome, acknowledged once again that the Pope must be regarded as "the first among equals" among all the hierarchs of the Church and that there can be no ecumenical council without his participation and approval. "During the first millennium there was no question that the first among all bishops was the Pope of Rome."

There remains, however, a certain ambiguity in the Archbishop's comments on the Pope being "the first among equals" as there is in his (and others) long- hoped-for ecumenical council of Catholic and Orthodox bishops coming together to recognize Papal primacy as of divine origin. It is important to note here that an ecumenical council cannot teach papal primacy to be of divine origin what is not already of divine origin by the words and will of Christ and acknowledged as such not only in the first millennium of the Church but in the second millennium as well. The divine origin of the petrine office was not instituted or established by any ecumenical council. It was rather instituted by the Lord of the Church Himself as disclosed in the foundational texts of scripture (the famous Petrine texts: Matt. 16:18; Luke 22:31-32; Jn. 21:15-17), and long ago acknowledged at the famous Reunion Council of Florence, and at Vatican I and Vatican II. By the grace of God another ecumenical council would bring about the welcome acceptance of papal primacy as of divine rather than ecclesiastical origin by our Eastern Orthodox brethren but that acceptance would only confirm the existence of a petrine office in the hierarchical structure of the Church which Christ Himself established as necessary for its visible unity.

James Likoudis
Montour Falls, New York

The divine origin of the petrine office was not instituted or established by any ecumenical council. It was rather instituted by the Lord of the Church Himself as disclosed in the foundational texts of scripture (the famous Petrine texts: Matt. 16:18; Luke 22:31-32; Jn. 21:15-17), and long ago acknowledged at the famous Reunion Council of Florence, and at Vatican I and Vatican II.

Why don�t you consider the role of exegetical arguments related to the debate on primacy?
ZIZIOULAS: Biblical exegesis and history are an unsafe ground of rapprochement. Although Peter�s leading position among the Twelve is recognised more and more also by the Orthodox, the particular importance attached to him by the Roman Catholics is strongly disputed by them. The late Cardinal Yves Congar saw this very well. He wrote: �In the East, the authority of the See of Rome was never that of a monarchical prince [�]. The Body of Christ has no Head other than Christ himself [�]. Byzantine theologians very rarely relate the primacy of the See of Rome to the Apostle Peter, although authors of prestige like Maximus the Confessor or Theodor the Studite do, at times, say something to this effect...�.
So, in that direction, the way is closed�
ZIZIOULAS: If we wait until Biblical scholars come to an agreement on the relationship between the role of Peter in the New Testament and the primacy exercised by the See of Rome, we may have to postpone the unity of the Church for another millennium, if not infinitely�

At least since the high Middle Ages the papacy has been understood as an institution directly created by Jesus Christ in his own lifetime: he willed that his Church should be ruled by the Apostles and their successors, and he gave to Peter, as leader of the apostles, the fullness of spiritual power, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter came to Rome, and there appointed his own successors, whose names are recited to this day in the canon of the Mass � Linus, Cletus, Clement, and so on down to John Paul II. All that the modern Church claims for the pope, his authority in doctrine and his power over institutions, is on this account a simple unfolding of the dominical bestowal of the keys, and the post-resurrection command to Peter to feed Christ�s sheep.

We have known for more than a century that the historical underpinning of this account is unfortunately not quite so simple. The Church of Rome during its first two centuries based its claims to precedence not on the Lord�s words to Peter, but on the preaching and death in Rome of two apostles, Peter and Paul. The commission in Matthew 16:18, "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven", is quoted in no Roman source before the time of the Decian persecution, in the middle of the third century, and even then the claims which the Pope of the time tried to base on that quotation were indignantly rejected by the Churches of Africa to whom he was addressing himself.

And indeed, the very roots of what may be called the foundation myth of the papacy are themselves uncomfortably complicated. The Church established itself in Rome some time in the AD 40s: we now know that for the best part of the century that followed, there was nothing and nobody in Rome who could recognisably be called a pope. Christianity in Rome evolved out of the Roman synagogues, and to begin with it was not so much a single Church as a constellation of independent churches, meeting in the houses of wealthy converts or in hired halls and public baths, without any central ruler or bishop. The Roman synagogues � there were 14 of them in the first century � unlike the synagogues in other great Mediterranean cities like Antioch . . . were all independent, with no central organisation or single president, and to begin with at least, the churches of Rome also functioned independently. Many of them were in any case ethnic or regional churches, groups of Syrian, Greek, Asian residents in Rome, using their own languages, following the customs of the Christian communities back in their home regions.

Elsewhere in the first century, episcopacy emerged as the dominant form of church order � the rule of each church by a single senior presbyter who took the lead in ordinations and the celebration of the Eucharist, and who was the focus of unity for all the Christians of a city or region. But Rome, probably because of the complexity and ethnic and cultural diversity of the Christian communities of the capital of the world, was very slow to adopt this system.

In the conventional accounts of the history of the papacy, the letter of Clement, written from Rome to the Church at Corinth around the year AD 95, is often thought of as the first papal encyclical, attributed to Pope Clement, Peter�s third successor and the last pope personally known to the Prince of the Apostles. In fact, the letter is written on behalf of the whole Roman Church, it is unsigned, and the author speaks unequivocally of "the elders who rule the Church", in the plural.

EVERYTHING we know about the Church at Rome in its first century or so points in the same direction, to a community which certainly thought of itself as one Church, but which was in practice a loose and often divided federation of widely different communities, each with its own pastors and its own distinctive and often conflicting liturgies, calendars and customs. It was in fact the threat of heresy within this seething diversity, and the Roman need to impose some sort of unity and coherence on the Church in the city, that led to the emergence of the Roman episcopate, and the firming up of the Roman community�s pride in the life and death among them of the two greatest apostles, into a succession narrative. By the 160s the graves of Peter and Paul had shrines built over them and were being shown to Christian visitors to Rome: by the early third century the bishops of Rome were being buried in a single crypt in what is now the catacomb of San Callisto, as a sort of visible family tree stretching back, it was believed, to the apostolic age. But all this was a construct, tidying the mess and confusion of real history into a neat and orderly relay race, with the baton of apostolic authority being handed from one bishop to another.

One last question. You knew Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. What do you think the approach and contribution of the new Pope to these issues could be?

ZIZIOULAS: I had the honor and privilege of meeting the then Cardinal Ratzinger in the early eighties when we were members of the International Commission on the official Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. He is a great theologian and an expert in ecclesiology, both Western and Eastern. In his new capacity as Pope he can certainly contribute decisively to the convergence between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox understanding of primacy. In the past he made some important suggestions for the solution of this problem. It may prove to be providential that he is Pope at this crucial moment of the discussion of this matter.

The Church established itself in Rome some time in the AD 40s: we now know that for the best part of the century that followed, there was nothing and nobody in Rome who could recognisably be called a pope.

Originally posted by ebed melech:
Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with you that Papal claims to divine origin are not always clear nor simple!

Unrelated, I read through the San Diego News and Notes site posted above. I found this piece a little strange.