www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West On Roman Primacy

Dear Friends,

Although I agree that the Roman Catholic developement of Roman Primacy might have gone a little too far and needs to be reformed to be more in line with the practice and tradition of the first millenia of the Church, I do not believe in the Eastern Orthodox depiction of Roman Primacy. I believe Roman Primacy must be more than a mere "primacy of honor." I think it must include -in some way- a primacy in teaching authority. This is the reason I remain an Eastern Catholic as opposed to an Eastern Orthodox.

But I have realized from this forum, that many Eastern Catholics have abandoned belief in anything beyond a "primacy of honor" for the Bishop of Rome. Don't get me wrong, I respect everyone's freedom to believe in what they understand to be the truth (as I would hope they would also do for me) but I have some questions in hopes of better understanding their positions.

For instance, many of the Eastern Catholics who say they only believe in a primacy of honor, would also say they think Rome has a unique role to play in preserving the communion of the ancient Churches. Only, the problem is, she has been going about it wrong by teaching things like primacy of jurisdiction, and papal infallibillity. If she were to abandon these, Eastern Orthodoxy might be open to recognizing her primacy and Orthodoxy once again.

If I have summed up these thoughts correctly, as I have understood them, my question is this:

Stripped of all primacy of jurisdiction, infallibillity, or primacy in teaching authority, what unifying force for preserving communion would Rome have? How would she differ from the role that has been played by Ecumenical Patriarch over the centuries since the Schism? Is this not a meaningless primacy?

I ask these questions not because I am trying to trap anyone in their logic but rather because I am trying to grow in my own understanding of this issue. Thanks for your anticipated input on this question.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

I think a fruitful place to begin to think about this is the apostolic canons, one of which relates quite squarely to the proper relationship between a primate of a local church and his brother bishops. By analogy, this can be extended to the level of communion of the local churches, and the role of the primate among the heads of those churches as well. Essentially, it requires an absolute balance between primacy and conciliarity. I think that would result in a more real primacy than the EP currently has, but nothing aproaching what Rome would expect.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Der-Ghazarian:
[QB]

>>>But I have realized from this forum, that many Eastern Catholics have abandoned belief in anything beyond a "primacy of honor" for the Bishop of Rome.<<<

What do YOU believe is meant by the term "primacy of honor"? Do you understand what it meant to the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Chalcedon?

>>>For instance, many of the Eastern Catholics who say they only believe in a primacy of honor, would also say they think Rome has a unique role to play in preserving the communion of the ancient Churches. Only, the problem is, she has been going about it wrong by teaching things like primacy of jurisdiction, and papal infallibillity. If she were to abandon these, Eastern Orthodoxy might be open to recognizing her primacy and Orthodoxy once again.<<<

That's pretty much correct.

>>>Stripped of all primacy of jurisdiction, infallibillity, or primacy in teaching authority<<<

You've mixed apples and oranges here. The first two are juridical in nature, the last is charismatic. The first two are later developments centered on the self-perception of the Latin Church, the last is something that was always recognized by the entire Church.

>>>what unifying force for preserving communion would Rome have?<<<

Rome would have its moral auctoritas, which is what Rome had long before any juridical powers had accrued or been claimed by her. As Fr. Francis Dvornik once wrote, the phrase "Roma locuta causa finita" was never more true than when Rome had NO juridical power whatsoever. Rome derives its authority from its witness to the truth. Truth is self-authenticating. If the Bishop of Rome speaks the truth, then others will recognize it as such. However, just because the Bishop of Rome says something (even something relating to faith and morals), it is not a priori true because he said it.

>>>How would she differ from the role that has been played by Ecumenical Patriarch over the centuries since the Schism? Is this not a meaningless primacy?<<<

First, the role assumed by the Ecumenical Patriarch did not replace that of the Church of Rome. It was never a particular person who held the primacy, but a particular Church represented through its patriarch. The historical and spiritual primacy belongs to the Church of Rome, and the Church of Constantinople, for a variety of historical as well as theological reasons, was never in a position to act as a replacement for Rome. Archbishop Vsevolod, in his eloquent pleas for Orthodoxy to recognize the need for a universal primacy, has put it in just such terms.

My dear Armenian friend,

I agree with what our Pillar of Orthodoxy, Brendan the Theologian has said, and with much of what Stuart Scholasticos has said also. (We are on very good terms here on this Forum, you know!)

But because Stuart is a democratic republican, he doesn't like the idea of anyone having jurisdiction over him.

Brendan's approach can help us address your concern with jurisdiction as such, I believe.

What I've noticed in Orthodoxy is that the EP is more than willing and capable of exercising what I would call "a form of jurisdiction" outside his Patriarchy when he calls other Patriarchs (e.g. that of Jerusalem) to take for an infraction of the canons.

He can even be more forceful than this than the Pope of Rome, at least from my perspective.

The point is that jurisdiction is a matter for internal church government that needs to be addressed.

Brendan's postulating that a future arrangement in this respect would see less power in the papal model and more in the patriarchal model is a great start here.

There were times when Rome did get involved in the affairs of other Churches before the split and the question is, for me anyway, "Can we define regulations governing such an exercise of universal Petrine Ministry that respects the integrity of the Particular Church?"

I believe that a good, canon-law type answer to that question will go a long way in the process of healing of the East-West rift.

Alex

Not true, Alex.

The local bishop rightfully has juridical power within his diocese; it is a concomitant of his role as oikonomos of the local Church, and something not challenged since Ignatius of Antioch. Of course, a wise bishop acts in a conciliar manner, and always takes into account the views of his people, for he is not only their shepherd and teacher, but also their representative. A foolish bishop imposes himself on his people, and usually alienates them in the process. He loses their affection, and thus his ability to steer them towards virtue and salvation.

For the record, I'm really more of a monarchist than a democratic republican. I think an inefficient monarchy is probably the most benign form of government.

Dear Stuart,

In that case, forgive me a sinner, Great One, forgive me!!

I prostrate myself at your noetic feet and implore your magnanimous readmission to your affections!

Why didn't you say that before, Big Guy?

Were you afraid I'd canonize you before your time?

Good for you, and God bless you!

By the way, could you tell me about how to blow the Shofar and when it is used liturgically?

Alex

Wm. writes:

>>>I believe Roman Primacy must be more than a mere "primacy of honor." I think it must include -in some way- a primacy in teaching authority.

She was often appealed to when various churches were getting themselves involved in disputes, much as an arbiter of the dispute, whose ruling would be accepted by both parties. When this would not work, ecumenical councils were called. The disputes inevitably, of course, involved teachings, and by way of the back door, she could be called a teaching authority, but that authority was derivative from the correctness of her teaching, and was not jurisdictional in some legalistic sense. Had it been so, there would not have been ecumenical councils convened, which made rulings binding on all, including the Roman Church.

>>>Rome has a unique role to play in preserving the communion of the ancient Churches ...what unifying force for preserving communion would Rome have?

The one She had for the first thousand years, until she got this authoritarian jurisdictional idea in Her head that she was somehow entitled to rule over the whole Church, rather than being the primary servant of the whole Church... And especially with reference to ekklessiological disputes which threaten issues of communion. Rome, wherever She was found, was looked up to and venerated by all the Churches as the place where the heart of the Faith was kept pure, where wise council could be unfailingly found.

She led the Church by example, you see...

geo

No apology was needed. I tried responding to your private communication by hitting the reply button on my browser, but apparently that doesn't work. So, in my experience, the Shofar today is blown only on high holy days, particularly Rosh Hoshannah and Yom Kippur. I've never seen it blown by anyone other than a rabbi or a cantor, so I don't know if just any male Jew can do it. As for how it is blown, beats me--I've never tried it. Looks difficult, though, so I think a little practice in private might be prudent--you want to bellow like a ram, not bleat like a yew.

Dear Stuart,

I am going to get myself one and use it for Pascha, Pentecost and Transfiguration as well as other days at home!

I was born in March so my sign is that of the Ram (that's not a sin to mention that, is it?).

I find I'm often on the horns of a dilemma . . .

God bless, Philosopater!

Alex

I don't understand what's the fuss about papal jurisdiction. I've always thought of it as a way for the Pope to settle arguments or whatever..like for example...if other Patriarchs or bishops..argue or whatever..they go to the Pope to settle such argument..like the pope is like a "father."

I never perceive papal jurisidiction as a way of CONTROLLING other churches or anything but to maintain unity.

Just like a Bishop having a jurisdiction over every parish in his eparchy..like he can walk over to that parish then walk over there...to preside Liturgies or meetings...but it doesn't mean he controls that parish and this parish...because the priests does.

So in the same manner..the Pope is that way...and you have to perceive the entire UNIVERSAL CHURCH is composed of different Churches...Western, Eastern, etc...and the Pope is the head of the entire Church. One would have to be a pastor of the UNIVERSAL Church, huh? Just like a bishop is the Pastor of the Eparchy and the priest as pastor of the parish.

As my friend once said (may God rest his soul)...if you were to cut the head off, then the body dies. So...if you cut off the Head of the Church, then the body of the Church dies. Remember...Christ is the TRUE HEAD, but since He is not Physically here to run the Church, so the Pope is a visible head...to run the Church for Him. Somebody's got to be a head of something, because if you don't then you'd have bunch of leaders disagreeing over many things then you'd see so many divisions.

There are lots of divisions within the Orthodox church because there's lack of "head" to keep it together (unity). Like there's 3 Ukrainian Orthodox Churches..with 3 Patriarchs. Now COME ON! I'll stop here...

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine.

PS, Orthodox Catholic, I'm a Ram too! Let's ram it! My b-day is March 24th, when's yours? Now I have to go to confession for saying that I'm a ram! :rolleyes:

Hi spdundas,
Papal jurisdiction is about unity as well as control. They are inseparable and does not fit in with the conciliar tradition of the Eastern Churches. Look at the situation as this: If Christ wanted one Apostle then why chose eleven more? Christ chose eleven to serve under one Apostle? Rome has this "Muslim Shia" perspective that "Ali" is the true successor of "Muhammed" only. Now substitute "Muslim Shia" for self-mindedness; "Ali" for St. Peter; and "Muhammed" for Jesus. Where is the trust and equality found is such an equation? The equality is the missing factor in relation with Rome and the East. More importantly than equality is the world perspective of our theologies. There is a gulf between the West & the East. Sharing the One Faith between the two Churches is very questionable. Jurisdictional problems within the Orthodox Church is an unfortunate reality due to human failings. Inspite of it, the Apostolic teachings remain intact with an active Holy Spirit. The Spirit of Truth would guide us into all His Truths in spite of our human failings. Papal jurisdiction is not one of apostolic equality but apostolic inequality with other Patriarchial jurisdictions. All of the Apostolic Sees are successors of Christ and not that of St. Peter alone. St. Peter was never alone or acted alone or done things alone.

To be fair we should go back to basics, Apostolicity 101, and proclaim Christ is the Head whom he chose 12 little heads to be stewards. Not to have one steward dominate another steward or stewards for control. According to the Orthodox consensus, the Primacy was an agreed position bestowed upon Rome with the blessings of the other Apostolic Sees. IMHO, it is an arrogant and misguided stance to continue with a mindset claiming to be first and to be the Mother and Universal Church over all legitimate Apostolic Sees. The consensus of the Church determines such a blessing for Primacy not one's own self-understanding of itself. This in effect alienates and divides the Body of Christ into warring camps. Form my Orthodox perspective, the only Orthodox divisions are pastoral(jurisdcitional) ones. Our Holy Tradition remains intact by the grace & power of the Holy Spirit. Amin.

SPDundas,

I don't understand what's the fuss about papal jurisdiction. I've always thought of it as a way for the Pope to settle arguments or whatever..like for example...if other Patriarchs or bishops..argue or whatever..they go to the Pope to settle such argument..

No problem with that model at all. That's what happened in the early church. But I notice that you're talking about others choosing[U/] and [u]recognizing the Pope as an arbiter.

like the pope is like a "father."

Fathers have real authority over their families which means they can at times dictate. This is exactly what the fuss is about -- it wasn't true before and isn't true now. There are lots of examples where the universal church did not recognize an absolute right of the Pope to dictate to the rest of the church.

I never perceive papal jurisidiction as a way of CONTROLLING other churches or anything but to
maintain unity.

I certainly can't tell you how to view it. But being Father implies control because fathers have authority - both in the home and in the parish.
A father with no authority to control (as well as do other things like guide) is not a father -- a person w/o such authority is a friend, not a father.

Just like a Bishop having a jurisdiction over every parish in his eparchy..like he can walk over to that parish then walk over there...to preside Liturgies or meetings...but it doesn't mean he controls that parish and this parish...because the priests does.

? Not sure what you mean here. Bishops in the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches can and do control what happens in their parishes. Of course they have no interest in controlling *everything* that happens there... but they could exercise their control over *any* aspect in particular if they wished to do so. The supreme act of control is appointing and removing priests from parishes.

So in the same manner..the Pope is that way...and you have to perceive the entire UNIVERSAL CHURCH is composed of different Churches...Western, Eastern, etc...and the Pope is the head of the entire Church. One would have to be a pastor of the UNIVERSAL Church, huh? Just like a bishop is the Pastor of the Eparchy and the priest as pastor of the parish.

I'm not sure how your view of the Papacy differs from that of Orthodoxy. Both of us appear to be maintaining the Pope claims to be father over the entire church and as such be able to exercise CONTROL. He demonstrates this right now by insisting on approving of the appointment of your Eastern Catholic bishops... something your own "Patriarch" can't even do. The only difference between your view of the Papacy and ours is that you think it's legit and we don't.

So...if you cut off the Head of the Church, then the body of the Church dies. Remember...Christ is the TRUE HEAD, but since He is not Physically here to run the Church, so the Pope is a visible head...to run the Church for Him. Somebody's got to be a head of something, because if you don't then you'd have bunch of leaders disagreeing over many things then you'd see so many divisions.

Then why does the Catholic church have more doctrinal division than us?

There are lots of divisions within the Orthodox church because there's lack of "head" to keep it together (unity). Like there's 3 Ukrainian Orthodox Churches..with 3 Patriarchs. Now COME ON!


Yet you would think with all that organizational unity being supplied by the Pope there would be doctrinal unity as well... but actually I see way, way more doctrinal unity among the Orthodox than among the Catholics. Even among Eastern Catholics I cannot find an "official" view of what the Pope's authority and perogatives are... and even if an official view could be given (like from the canon law he imposes on you, hee, hee) then the dissent from this is soooo widespread among Eastern Catholics that they really look like Orthodox (as individuals - not your church) to me.


Eric
(Orthodox)

[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: Eric ]

Dear Eric,

How does the Catholic Church have doctrinal division?

As with Orthodoxy, there can be theological opinions, but unity on what the Church has defined as necessary for us to believe.

I think the issue, and one can hear this from Orthodox in the first instance, is the jurisdictional issue within Orthodoxy.

Can you deny that it is not an issue?

From a pragmatic point of view, Rome does provide a source of unity, as Meyendorff states it did in the first millennium of the Church's existence.

And I think Orthodox theologians see union with Rome as the original model of ecclesial unity.

From the Orthodox point of view, as I understand it, the issue is not about Rome's primacy per se, but about how the Petrine Ministry should be exercised to affirm, at one and the same time, the Church's unity universally AND respect for the rights of Autocephalous, Particular Churches.

And we Eastern Catholics join with the Orthodox in saying that this issue has not been resolved to everyone's satisfaction as yet.

Alex

Alex,

How does the Catholic Church have doctrinal division?

For starters we could look at Eastern Catholics as an example. Does Rome have authority OVER you to CONTROL you or not? Some say "yes, of course, we're Catholic" and some say "no, of course not".

As with Orthodoxy, there can be theological opinions, but unity on what the Church has defined as necessary for us to believe.

This is exactly what I mean. If I ask Eastern Catholics if they have to accept the Vatican I view of papal infallibility I get many different answers. I understand one will often get many different answers when one asks different people which is why I'm wanting an official source for how the Eastern Catholic churches see Vatican I.
I don't think there is one which suggests to me they have not completely affirmed it - if true that would be doctrinal division. How about the doctrine of merits and indulgences? I've heard explanations that try to say the eastern & western views are really both true yet I haven't found an official Eastern Catholic source that says the doctrine of indulgences is true.

My point is not to discuss indulgences or papal infallibility per se but just to show some examples of doctrinal disunity.


I think the issue, and one can hear this from Orthodox in the first instance, is the jurisdictional issue within Orthodoxy.

Can you deny that it is not an issue?

Yes, I deny it's an issue. Sounded good to say that! Too bad it ain't true... Seriously, yes, of course it's an issue in western countries where different jurisdictions have setup "shop" and an indigenous Orthodox church hasn't been formed there.

And I think Orthodox theologians see union with Rome as the original model of ecclesial unity.

Yes and no. The Orthodox and Catholic perspectives on that are 180 degrees apart but Rome did play a de facto role, yes.

From the Orthodox point of view, as I understand it, the issue is not about Rome's primacy per se,

I think there's a mistake right there when you say "the Petrine ministry". Orthodox acknowledge Rome had a de facto role at the center of the church. They deny this is by divine right. The "Petrine Ministry" is often used by Catholics to mean that ministry given to Peter and his successors by God. If you don't mean it that way then I have misunderstood you.

but about how the Petrine Ministry should be exercised to affirm, at one and the same time, the Church's unity universally AND respect for the rights of Autocephalous, Particular Churches.

And we Eastern Catholics join with the Orthodox in saying that this issue has not been resolved to
everyone's satisfaction as yet.

Doesn't really matter if it's been resolved to your satisfaction - Rome appoints your bishops and imposes canon law on you. Eventually the bishops of Rome's choosing will keep teaching Rome's viewpoint long enough until subsequent generations of Eastern Catholics will see it Rome's way.

[ 08-22-2002: Message edited by: Eric ]

Dear Eric,

You are intellectually versatile and theologically astute, Friend! It is a pleasure to converse with you!

Actually, I don't really know what "Petrine Ministry" means. For me, it connotes a definition of the papal office that is less bureaucratic and autocratic and more based on the way the Church saw it in the first millennium, a charismatic type office, which, for many, is today embodied by the personal ministry of Pope John Paul II as well.

I see your point on "doctrinal disunity" which, from my perspective isn't a big deal.

I think our Administrator, in his response on Indulgences and "Vidpusts" provided a model Byzantine theological perspective on that issue. I showed it, as a matter of fact, to an Orthodox friend at work who personally told me that if that is how Indulgences are understood in the Catholic Church, he has no problem with it!

Meyendorff was a remarkable theologian not only for the Orthodox, but for everyone really.

What has always truly fascinated me about "your man" was the way that he could see into the Roman Catholic heritage as well as his own and come up with conclusions that are useful to both.

He understood the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory as doctrines that could be "restated" from within both traditions.

Even on the matter of indugences, he never denied them or the Roman Church's right to use them, but only denied that the East would ever have a "system of indulgences."

So there is, I believe, a sense of a "generic" notion concerning what is implied by something like "indulgences" which is, to be sure, a Latin thing that is shared by the East.

As an Eastern Christian, admittedly coming from a Latinized background (but I'm working on it, Eric the Well-Read, I'm working on it! ), when I hear "indulgence," I think of a "podvig" or spiritual exercise undertaken for penance for sin, for self-discipline, for someone's intention.

And I think of it, as the Administrator has so capably demonstrated on another thread, precisely as something to which God responds, as He responds to every sincere prayer and ascetical exercise, with His Grace and Mercy.

I've shared this with Roman Catholic priests and bishops who say that this view meshes perfectly with their understanding of indulgences as well.

So when you say "doctrinal disunity," I think you are seeing, in fact, the great richness of different liturgical and theological points of view existing at once within the Catholic Church that is in communion with Rome as its centre.

The Orthodox Church is fundamentally "Byzantine" in its theological make-up, even though it wouldn't use that term.

One issue I see with a lack of a similar centre for Orthodoxy is that there is within it a domination of one particular heritage that appears less tolerant of others.

Rome may appoint our bishops etc. but we're fighting back

And Rome is open to liturgical diversity in a way no other Church ever has.

Alex