www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Petrine Views

Dear brother Melkite,


Permit me to give a background of my thoughts on the matter. From my studies, I’ve identified three distinct positions in the Church Catholic:

Absolutist Petrine view: There is only one head bishop - the bishop of Rome. All other bishops of whatever grade are merely an extension of papal authority. Even the Ecumenical Council is merely an extension of papal authority. If there is a disagreement between the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) and his brother bishops, the head bishop's will dominates to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. Anyone not agreeing is excommunicated. The head has an overarching importance over the body.

High Petrine view: The constitution of the Church, on its several hierarchical levels, is modeled after the Apostles, who had St. Peter as their head. The head bishop has the same role as St. Peter had among the Apostles. The head bishop has true and proper plenary jurisdiction in his entire patriarchate (or, for the Pope, the entire Church), and has a unique authority among his brother bishops. He is bound by the principle of the unity of the Church, and the divine rights of his brother bishops, to always work with his brother bishops in all matters affecting the Church as a whole. He is also bound by those same principles to not interfere in the proper and ordinary jurisdiction of his brother bishops. If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, there must be constant exchange until agreement is reached, not that he can impose his singular will on all. The head and the body are equally indispensable.

Low Petrine view: Every bishop is a successor of St. Peter. There is often a denial that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. A head bishop has only a primacy of honor, and no primacy of jurisdiction, and possesses a merely local jurisdiction of his own See/diocese. He has no authority different from any of his brother bishops. At best, he is a spokesman for or representative of his brother bishops. If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, he must always concede to the will of the majority. Those who hold this view sometimes deny that there is even such a thing as a head bishop.

From my studies and experience, I’ve observed the following:

The Absolutist Petrine view is primarily held by most Latins, and a few Oriental Catholics. It is currently an acceptable interpretation of the papal prerogatives in the Catholic Church (unfortunately). This position was a local development in the Latin Church during the high Middle Ages when the Catholic Church was effectively only Latin. It will perhaps take another Ecumenical Council or an ex cathedra decree from the Pope to divest the Catholic Church of that belief. Certain ultra-traditionalist Catholics will likely schism when this happens (God forbid). Many mistake this to be the official position of the Catholic Church.

The High Petrine view is held by many Latins, most Oriental Catholics, most Eastern Catholics, and with the exception of the position of head bishop for the Church universal, by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, PNCC, Assyrian Churches, and many Eastern Orthodox. The High Petrine view was the one proposed by V1 and reinforced by V2. One really has to read the behind-the-scenes goings on at the Council, the actual debates that went on at the Council (not the propaganda outside the Council, or the false exaggerations of men like Dollinger, Kung and others who were not even at the Council) to understand the truly collegial intent of V1. I suspect this is the view held by the Melkite hierarchy, and its concerns are really directed against the Absolutist Petrine view that most Latins wrongly perceive to have been the position of V1. This is the patristic model, as reflected in the practice and canons of the undivided Church of the first millenium.

The Low Petrine view is held primarily by a majority of Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and a few Eastern Catholics. This position was a local development of the Eastern Orthodox Church after the schism. I suspect it gained prominence after Florence, when many considered several of their head bishops to have fallen into heresy. Apologists for this position often second opponents of the Absolutist Petrine view from the High Petrine camp for support against the papacy, but there are fundamental theological and canonical differences between the two positions.

Though most Latins have an Absolutist Petrine view, I really believe they hold this position because they are innocently unaware (i.e., invincibly ignorant) of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. Even those who are aware of our existence often regard our distinctiveness as merely ritual, with no knowledge of our unique spiritualities and theologies. I have debated against the Absolutist Petrine view with many Latins at CAF, and I’ve met only one or two who did not change their mind on the matter after being given the evidence from Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 – but they were ultra-traditionalists who don’t have a good thing to say about Vatican 2 anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

A good presentation, thank you...

james

Wondering if you could elaborate on the position of the Oriental Orthodox Churches on primacy. I'm very interested in the Coptic Church (as we have discussed before) . Do the Copts (and other Oriental Churches) view Alexandria as the universal see? Thanks.

Nelson, to some degree, yes...

The titles of the Alexandrian pope include "Supreme Judge of the Universe" and "13th apostle"...

Further, the OOC defines itself by communion with Alexandria.
Within the Coptic Orthodox, Pope Shenouda III has censured bishops for some rather small "infractions"... in some cases, removing them unilaterally.

As I noted, the prerogatives of the Pope of Alexandria since the third century greatly exceeded those claimed or acknowledged for the Pope of Rome--including the right to appoint and depose bishops within the territory of the patriarchate. Why this should have become the case is disputed, but many historians believe it has to do with the rampant gnosticism of the Alexandrian Church from the second through the third centuries (not for nothing were all those gnostic texts found in Nag Hammadi). More direct oversight was one way that St. Clement and his successors managed to bring the Alexandrines back to orthodoxy.

The difference between Alexandria ca. 300 and Rome ca. 1300 is Alexandria did not pretend it could impose its views on other Churches by virtue of the power claimed by its Patriarch internally.

The High Petrine view is held by many Latins, most Oriental Catholics, most Eastern Catholics, and with the exception of the position of head bishop for the Church universal, by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, PNCC, Assyrian Churches, and many Eastern Orthodox. The High Petrine view was the one proposed
Marduk,

You've put together a very interesting analysis of the different views!

Question:

Can, then, papal authority be exercised in an improper way?

For example, does the Pope exercise his authority legitimately when restricting the rights of the Eastern Churches outside their "canonical territories," such as regulating how Eastern Churches can ordain married men to the priesthood here in the US?

Is this within the realm of "the High Petrine view" or would that model fall under the "Absolutist Petrine view"?

Editing problem with my above post. The entire first block, beginning with "The High Petrine view..." should be a quote from Marduk.

My comments follow after when I address Marduk. I was in a hurry to go to Mother's Day dinner with the family and I didn't notice the problem earlier.

This is not what The Orthodox Church believes. It believes that every bishop has apostolic succession, meaning one of the apostles charged a bishop at one point historically in certain places to succeed them.

No Orthodox Christian would ever say this. That St. Peter was the head of the Apostles is biblical.

If by head bishop you mean primate, you are still incorrect. The primate of a Holy Synod brings administrative order to the Holy Synod. This is not "worldly authority" where one Bishop has power over another (You shall not be as the gentiles who lord their power over another). The mistake here is equating "primacy of honor" with "jurisdictional authority over".

This would be a muddled and incorrect assessment of Orthodox Synodality.


Synodality is not a democracy.


Interesting...


Okay.


I disagree with this assessment. I don't think any Orthodox Christians actually hold the "low petrine" view.


Your use of the term constitution is too vague here. Do you mean Bishops, Presbyters, Diaconate and laity? Do you mean Bishops and priests? The Apostles were just that, apostles. At least, from an Orthodox perspective. First, there were 12 Apostles. Then, there were 70 apostles. There were several subsequent apostles, but the constitution you seem to refer to is in fact just the twelve. The Church received succession from these apostles, which were the Bishops.

Great post Laka!

All the bishops are successors of all the Apostles - which necessarily includes St. Peter - and that means that the petrine authority and succession is common to the whole episcopate.

This idea is clearly set forth in the document under review by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church entitled "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium [chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it]," and here is the pertinent section (no. 20):

". . . the East tended rather to understand each bishop as the successor of all of the apostles, including Peter (cf. Cyprian, De unit. ecc., 4-5; Origen, Comm. in Matt.)."

Dear brother Nelson,

Brothers Amaris and Stuart have given you great responses.

I’ll only add that the Oriental Orthodox are composed of three separate sub-Traditions (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian) that are united by Faith and communion. There were jurisdictional squabbles between the Syrians and the Copts in the 13th century, but there is really no inter-Church intervention among the three Churches.

Within each Church, the Patriarch (and Catholicos for the Armenians) functions like the bishop of Rome for the Catholic Church in almost all respects. Every OOC adds “Supreme” to the title of their Patriarch/Catholicos. This supreme headship in each OO Church, as mentioned, is based not only on the Canons of the early Church, but also has a theological basis derived from the example of the Apostles who had St. Peter as their head.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

I’ll agree with you that in the time of Lyons, there was an almost one-sided development. But Florence did not proceed in that manner. Papalism was a relatively short-lived phenomenon for the ecumenical relationship between Easterns and Latins after the Great Schism (with a bit more lengthy for the Orientals, especially for the Maronites). IMO, it is currently the EO (not all) who is more guilty of trying to impose its theological views on the Latins, and has an even much longer track-record than the Latin Church of attempting to impose its local disciplines and practices on the rest of the Church, both West and Orient.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother DTBrown,

I believe it can. I can think of only two examples in the past, though:
(1) Pope St. Victor’s attempt to excommunicate the churches in Asia over the Easter Controversy.
(2) Attempts by Rome to impose some minor liturgical changes onto Oriental Churches in the late Middle Ages (interestingly, since Rome was not fully knowledgeable on the Oriental Traditions, it sometimes tried to impose Eastern Byzantine practices on the Orientals) as conditions for reunion.

There are those who would probably add to the list, and I’d be willing to investigate those instances to see if they truly qualify as Absolutist Petrine exercises of authority.

I don’t believe that situation was an Absolutist Petrine exercise of authority, for one simple reason: Rome was acceding to the will of the majority of bishops in North America - who just happened to be of the Latin Tradition.

From my studies of the situation, it seems Rome itself had tried to accommodate the Easterns as much as possible. For instance, it knew of the fact that married EC priests were still immigrating to the U.S. even after Ea Semper was issued, but did nothing about it. And in 1925, Rome even granted Bishop Takach an explicit dispensation to ordain married priests. Because of that, the Latin bishops increased their complaints, and Rome was forced to issue Cum Data Fuerit in 1929.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Laka Ya Rabb,

You are apparently of the High Petrine view, which is great.

You should spend some time at CAF. There are some there, and even more in the past before the Eastern Forum was changed. There was a general anti-papal bent, so I don't think EO who were of the High Petrine view were much interested in correcting their EO brethren of the Low Petrine view. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, as the saying goes.

What about "hierarchical level" is vague? And it's interesting that though you said earlier that St. Peter is the head of the Apostles, you don't differentiate between St. Peter and the Apostles here. The headship of St. Peter is one of the prerogatives handed down in the apostolic succession. I said earlier that you are apparently of the High Petrine view, but this final comment from you makes me think you are of the Low Petrine view.

Blessings

Dear brother Apotheoun,

I guess you are of the Low Petrine view. The episcopate in general have apostolic authority, but Petrine authority is unique to the head bishops.

The Commission stated why this is so - it is because there is a distinction between succession based on Peter's person and succession based on Peter's teaching/faith. According to the latter, all bishops would share in the Petrine succession, but according to the former, it is really only head bishops who share in that particular succession. This headship is a particular ministry, which is not given to all bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother DTBrown,

You know, I've heard this a lot from Eastern Catholics and a few Oriental Catholics. Can you cite the decree that made such a restriction? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

I have no idea whether there was a formal decree or not. It is a fact, however, that the Holy See considers its prerogative to appoint Eastern Catholic bishops outside of the territories of the Patriarchates--which is to say, the status quo at the end of the 17th century. Just why all patriarchates are territorial except for the Western Patriarchate, which is extraterritorial, has never quite been explained--other than perhaps the lingering notion that only the Roman Church is "universal", and all others are merely "national".

But that, of course, is just an accident of history caused by the Pope claiming, through his Spanish and Portuguese surrogates, jurisdiction over all "missionary territories" in the newly discovered worlds--even if, as was the case in India and parts of Africa, there were already Christian present who had been Christians before Constantine had legitimized Christianity in Rome itself. The manner in which the Latin Church behaved towards those Christians is quite well documented, but--as is the case in India--not only have amends not been made, the Latin Church still treats these indigenous Churches as interlopers in their own lands.

Last I heard, UGCC bishops in the US were appointed by the Patriarch/MajorArchbishop... It's only erecting new eparchies that seems to be restricted.

Actually I reject the artificial divisions that you put forward. It is all a little to neat and tidy for me, and appears to be an attempt to read the modern Western position into the past.

I hold - in line with Tradition - that all bishops are successors of the Apostles, which - as I said before - necessarily includes St. Peter. Moreover, there is no sacrament of primacy, nor does there need to be such a thing, because primacy is inherent to the episcopal office. As far as the three chief sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch) are concerned, they exercise primacy because the ecumenical councils of the Church confirmed their canonical priority. The ecumenical councils also raised two other sees to primatial status (i.e., Constantinople and Jerusalem), which proves that primacy is inherent to episcopacy in general, because if it were not it would be impossible to create new primates within the synodal structure of the hierarchy.

I reject the later Western developments which propose the idea that the Roman see holds primacy within the body of bishops as a divinely revealed dogma because that theory is not a part of the Tradition of the ancient Church, but is instead a construct created by Western Christians during the second millennium in order to try and justify the monarchical form of the papacy as it had evolved after the fall of the Roman empire in the West. That said, one of the things that I find refreshing in the Joint Commissions Document is that it does not anachronistically apply later Western theories about the bishop of Rome being somehow the sole successor of St. Peter to the early Church, but speaks instead of the unity of the episcopate and the succession of all bishops from all the Apostles. In the final analysis all bishops are sacramentally equal, because they all ontologically possess one and the same priesthood, and to say otherwise is to inject divisions within the order of episcopacy. I think - given the fact that the episcopal order is ontologically and sacramentally one - that it is time that the bishop of Rome be placed back within the synod of bishops in the West, as the protos within his patriarchate, not as the lord and master of the other bishops, but as their brother and fellow high priest. In other words, it is time that the West apply canon 34 of the Apostolic Constitutions in full, rather than simply focusing all authority in the protos.

Now as far as the foundations of the Roman primacy are concerned, I tend to agree with the Commission's document which sees Roman primacy as having historical causes with the main cause being the position of the city of Rome within the empire. I hold this position because the later theories of the West - as the Commission's document indicates - only developed with the collapse of the Empire in the West as a new way for the Roman Church to try and justify its priority, but as the document makes clear ". . . In the East, this evolution in the interpretation of the ministry of the bishop of Rome did not occur" (no. 20). The Eastern Orthodox Churches have never accepted the later Western idea that the bishop of Rome is the sole personal successor of Peter; instead, those venerable Churches see Apostolic succession as a succession in the faith of the Apostles, which includes Peter, and which is shared by all bishops. By the way . . . if you read St. Gregory the Great's letter you will discover that he held to a primacy for the three great historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), and held that they were all equal, i.e., that they were "one see in three places" (see also the Commission's document no. 16). St. Gregory seems to have no sense of superiority for the Roman see, which as Laka pointed out is a true Christian quality, because authority in the Church is not to be equated with power over others, as it is with the Gentiles, but is instead a form of humble service. St. Gregory the Great in his letters also clearly rejects any notion that there can be a "universal" bishop.

Actually the document states quite clearly that the Eastern Churches never accepted the later Western development which focused petrine succession on the bishop of Rome exclusively. So I cannot agree with you on this issue. The patristical tradition, as I understand it, affirms that certain bishops can have primacy within the synodal structure of the episcopate but only because that quality (i.e., primacy) is inherent to all episcopal sees.

That said, I explained my position some time ago in a post here at the Byzantine forum, and my views have not changed substantially on the issue since I made that post several years ago (although I would tweak some aspects of the post I have presented it below as it appeared in the older thread). Here is what I said:


Taken from: Canon Law Question

Dear brother Todd

I ain’t no Latin. I am Oriental.

I ask that you be more specific and state “Eastern Tradition.” Since the East never explicitly repudiated the Western Tradition on the matter, I don’t believe you can claim that position to be unqualified “Tradition.” Further, there is evidence that the East associated the apostolic succession of bishops to specific Apostles (e.g., Eusebius; the Trullan Canon that linked the succession of Constantinople to St. Andrew), so I’m not even sure you can emphatically claim your position to even be “Eastern Tradition.”

Sacraments have nothing to do with it. Primacy among the priesthood of a local see or diocese is inherent (held by the bishop). But there was also a primacy among bishops, as confirmed by Apostolic Canon 34/35, after the model established by Christ among the Apostles. Episcopal primacy is not inherent in the office of each bishop.


Your language belies your position. The Ecum councils indeed confirmed priority, indicating that the exercise of primacy in these Sees was a fact long before Nicea.

No. If episcopal primacy is inherent in the office of bishop, any bishop can elevate himself to primate. What a sad state of affairs the Church would be, IMO, if your view represented the actual constitution of the Church from the beginning.

The primacy of the bishop of Rome was always the Tradition of both East and West, as the Commission affirmed, “since apostolic times.”

Just to be clear, the dogma of papal primacy does not claim that Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter. That he is sole successor is an interpretation by those who hold the Absolutist Petrine view. But that is not the official position of the Catholic Church.


Agreed.


False. Though they are equal I that respect, they are not all equal in their duties in the Church. Head bishops have the unique ministry of keeping order and unity in the Church. It is actually your position that has the imminent danger of injecting divisions within the order of the episcopacy.

From what I’ve seen, it’s always been like that. Granted, it is not so much “synodal” as “collegial,” but to claim that the Pope acts unilaterally in his role as Patriarch or in his role as Pope is an unjustified accusation.

Rather, perhaps it is time for those who hold the Low Petrine view in the East to apply Apostolic Canon 34/35, and stop acting as if the head bishop (of whatever grade) is “just another bishop.” This weakness in the polemic Eastern position is quite evident in its constant complaint, “The Pope must approve everything, therefore he is an absolute monarch.” Yet, the Apostolic Canon explicitly states that the body cannot act without its head. So the complaint betrays an unapostolic mindset.

That was the last of 4 reason given by the Commission. The first one was apostolic foundation.

What do you mean by “later theories”? Do St. Cyprian’s statements in the 3rd century on the primacy of Rome before his disagreement with Rome qualify as a “later theory?” Does St. Irenaeus’ teaching in the 2nd century that the primacy of Rome depends on her apostolic foundation qualify as a “later theory?” The non-Catholic polemic that Sees hold their primacy due to socio-political considerations appears to be later than these, don’t you think?

There’s no doubt about it, since Rome has never claimed that the bishop of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter.

As stated, Rome has never claimed exclusive petrine succession, so that is basically a straw man argument. Besides, the document does not really delve into the issue of “exclusive petrine succession” (probably because it was smart enough to realize Rome has never claimed that). Rather, the discussion focused on the gradual emphasis in the West on St. Peter’s faith and person as the sine qua non of Rome’s apostolic succession.

Well, the ancient Canons disagree, so I certainly can’t agree to this as an Oriental and a Catholic.

Agreed, but there is a fine line between “service” and the “power to discipline,” which, for the good of the Church (i.e., for her service), the Canons permit head bishops to do to those bishops under him if necessary.

That doesn’t make sense in the least. Eucharistic communion is the essential sign of ecclesiological unity. What evinces the unity of a diocese? Eucharistic communion with the bishop. What evinces the unity of a Metropolitan See? Eucharistic communion with the Metropolitan What evinces the unity of a Major Archepiscopal See? Eucharistic communion with the Catholicos or Major Archbishop. What evinces the unity of a Patriarchate? Eucharistic communion with the Patriarch. What evinces the unity of the universal Church? Eucharistic communion with --- ??? no one ??? As I said, that position makes no sense at all, unless one does not view the universal Church as a real entity.

I agree with you here. However, I do think that “jurisdiction” can legitimately be used in terms of service.

The same Lord and Savior who instituted the Eucharist also stated He would set one servant over His household, which would be present when He returned, so I seriously fail to see how the two can be opposed.

Blessings,
Marduk

As in, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you? Or, to be more precise, "I'm from the Oriental Congregation, I'm here to help you?

Papal authority over patriarchs is NOT originally 2nd millenium... it was held in the 600's by an Assyrian theologian, who compared the relationship of Pope of Rome and the Patriarchs to that of Patriarchs and Bishops. This theologian was quoted by Mar Soros as part of why he came into union with Rome.

The Assyrian church has, since that time frame or before, allowed their patriarchs to depose the Assyrian bishops, that implies somewhat more authority than a normal bishop.

It is no different than from 3 young priests, one is assigned as pastor... the position grants authority above that granted by ordination.

I never said that you were a Latin. Nevertheless, your views do appear to favor a Western approach, and in this you are in disagreement with the Oriental Orthodox that I have talked to both on the internet and in person.

Just as your language belies your position. There is nothing in any of the Ecumenical Councils that reveals the concept of a single bishop have "universal" jurisdiction. The confirmation of Alexandria's priority in North Africa by the Holy Fathers at Nicaea I indicates quite clearly the fact that Rome did not have jurisdiction in that region.

It should be clear that I am referring throughout my post to the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, since I kept referencing back to the document under review by the Joint International Commission for Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Nevertheless, I have no problem with the idea that particular sees have a historical connection to particular individuals, but even in making that type of concession (i.e., to historical connections) I would never accept - as an Eastern Christian in communion with Rome - the idea that the sacrament of orders to episcopacy can be divided up ontologically between different sees with varying degrees of authority, because I believe that doing that is heretical. All bishops are sacramentally equal as successors of all the Apostles, even if one takes into account historical successions that go back to specific individuals. In other words, I reject the idea that there can be "super" or "universal" bishops.

I wouldn't say that.


All polemics aside, in context, I don't recall a complete denial of St. Peter as a head Apostle. More like a denial of his biblical headship as seen through the lens of Roman Catholic dogma. Even still, everyone is entitled to their opinions I suppose. So undoubtedly some Orthodox Christians can be wrong in their assessment of St. Peter.


What I mean to say is that The Apostles were gathered by Christ. They are not equated to the Bishops of our day because Bishops are successors appointed by the Apostle. When you speak of hierarchical structure, you seem to say that the twelve Apostles were Bishops and all Bishops are the twelve Apostles. In Orthodox Theology, Apostle and Bishop are two different titles.

None of the three views you presented correctly articulate the position of the Orthodox Church on St. Peter vis-à-vis the Apostles, Apostolic Succession and the current model of hierarchical structure of the Orthodox Church.

A more accurate title for the view that I hold would be "the Biblical Apostolic Historical view".

This would be true if the episcopal office was about power over others, but it is not. Every synod, whether local, regional, or universal, must have a primate, but that does not mean that the primacy of a particular Church is a revealed dogma. Rome has primacy because it was the most important city in the Christian world, and I accept that idea, but that does not mean that it is a divinely revealed truth that the Church of Rome is protos among (but not over) the other Churches.

The primacy of Rome within the Church developed early in the Church's history, but there is no evidence of this primacy in the New Testament. Nor was there any Roman primacy at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), because there was no Roman Church at that time. I have no problem accepting the fact that Rome's primacy is an early tradition, and I revere it as such, but I am also willing to admit that Roman primacy is not a divinely revealed truth.

You appear befuddle. The Apostolic Canon 34 makes no assertion about primacy being a special sacrament, it merely indicates that within the body of bishops there is always a primate. If primacy is not inherent to the episcopal order it follows that there is no primacy at all, and I refuse to accept that notion.

I do not believe in a "dogma of papal primacy." Rome - along with Alexandria and Antioch - has an historical connection to St. Peter, but that historical connection is not a dogma in connection with any one of those three Churches or even all of them together. I will reject any notion that divides the mystery of episcopacy into parts, because I hold that the episcopal order is one high priesthood which is made manifest in multiple locations through those men who have been consecrated as bishops to oversee the various Churches.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I do not believe that the position of protos within the synod is a special sacrament, and to assert such a thing causes division within the episcopate. It involves the injection of Gentile notions of power over others, which is contrary to the teaching of Christ.

Just as there is no more eucharist in one Church and less in another, so there is not more bishop in one Church and less in another. Alas, the Western understanding of primacy invariably devolves into supremacy of one bishop and Church over another bishop and Church, and that idea is contrary to the Gospel.

Primacy within synodality is the key to understanding the nature of the episcopal order within the Church.

Since this idea arose in the 7th century it cannot be a divinely revealed truth. It is terrible to think that the Church could have been in dogmatic error for nearly 600 years.

I see all the bishops throughout history as this one servant. Multiplicity does not destroy unity.

The Orthodox East and Catholic West have approached this differently since at least the 5th century, which is when the West began to evolve its modern concept of papal supremacy.

Thanks! And subsequently everything else you wrote after this post I am in agreement with.

I agree. I believe the Eastern Orthodox accept the idea that St. Peter is the Coryphaeus within the Apostolic Choir. Nevertheless, this biblical notion among the Orthodox is not confused with the later Western theory that transfers St. Peter's authority to the bishop of Rome in a singular fashion.

You're welcome.

By the way, it is always a joyful day when an Eastern Catholic Christian and an Eastern Orthodox Christian agree on matters related to ecclesiology.

P.S. - I hope all is well with you and your family. Say hello to Tiffany and Aidan for me.

Agreed.

Interesting. There are many Roman apologists who cite Pope St. Victor as proof for an early papal authority. They, of course, see that as part of the "divine prerogative" of the Roman See. They would also quote canon 45 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches [intratext.com]:


For them, even if the authority is misused, it must be obeyed.


So, Rome isn't to be blamed for the restrictions (not just
Cum Data Fuerit -- but there were others earlier) because it was "forced" to do so?

If this is true, then the papacy singularly failed in its Petrine ministry.

Shouldn't the role of such a Petrine ministry be such that it should have stepped in and said to the Latin Bishops: "What you want is wrong"? Shouldn't the Pope have used his moral authority to insist on the rights and privileges of the Eastern Churches?

A comparison from American history:

One could say that President Andrew Jackson was only "forced" to accede to the wishes of Congress and the white residents of Georgia when he signed the Indian Removal Act [en.wikipedia.org], but could he not have vetoed that legislation? Jackson could have stopped the removal of Native Americans from Georgia to the Western part of the US. But, he didn't.

I would say that even if Rome "caved in" (which I would dispute) to the wishes of the American Latin hierarchy to restrict the Eastern tradition of a married clergy, it was an improper use of such an authority.

If there is such a Petrine ministry for the Church, this is one of those situations where it needs to speak courageously for what is right and not give in to the wishes of a majority who are trampling on the rights of others.

But, this functioning of the Patriarch and Catholicos is within their Patriarchate, right?

Wouldn't the most we could extrapolate from such a tradition is that the Pope of Rome might have such authority within his Patriarchate?

The Assyrians, at least, considered the Pope of Rome to have the same relationship to Patriarchs as Patriarchs to bishops, back in the 600's.

Dear brother Stuart,

I consider the Oriental Congregation as a most useful and even necessary means for the Pope to carry on his biblical, apostolic and patristic duty of helping other Churches in financial need.

Apart from that, the Petrine ministry itself is meant to confirm the brethren in the Faith, which cannot be doubted is a ministry of service.

Blessings,
Marduk

Sorry, I had missed this earlier.

Some recent examples:

From 1998 [news.google.com]

From 1999 (where the previous appro...ried ordinands must be approved by Rome) [post-gazette.com]

Historical background on the problem [orthocath.wordpress.com]

Might be useful in some situations but could easily cause a lot of problems if misused.

Dear brother Aramis,

Thank you for bringing that up. I'd push it back to the 5th century, when the Fourth Ecum Council sought to assign to Pope St. Leo the appellation of "universal bishop." I'd even push it back to the 4th century, with the Council of Sardica's attribution of universal appellate authority to the bishop of Rome. In the 3rd century, we have St. Cyprian himself appealing to the bishop of Rome to discipline bishops in Gaul and Spain (the normal non-Catholic rejoinder that Spain and Gaul were in the Western Patriarchate is irrelevant, because the notion that there is a separation of jurisdiction between East and West did not even exist yet - and they say that Catholics are anachronistic! ).

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd,

Yes, we've often argued this point at CAF. You think the High Petrine view is a purely Western phenomenon, when it is actually the patristic model (not your Low Petrine view). It is the Absolutist Petrine view that is a purely Western development. And I oppose that just as much as I oppose the development of the Low Petrine view in the East. I certainly don't see your idea that head bishops have no different authority in the Church than other bishops anywhere among the early Church Fathers.

I think the problem is that the Low Petrine view really has a problem reconciling itself to the patristic evidence. This is reflected in the vacillating rhetoric wherein in one place, those of the Low Petrine view will adamantly assert "all bishops are equal, and there are no episcopal grades," and then backtrack a bit when faced with the evidence, saying, "Oh, well, there is a head bishop, but it is only a position of honor, with no authority or jurisdiction over other bishops." Then the Low Petrine view literally falls apart when faced with the Canons of the early Church which granted certain bishops jurisdiction over other bishops, with these certain bishops having the authority to discipline the bishops under him, even with deposition, and to regulate the practices of their territory.

Blessings

P.S. Thanks for splitting up the topics!

As I said before I reject your threefold categorization of views in connection with primacy.

All bishops possess petrine authority because all bishops have the faith of St. Peter. I see no incontrovertible patristic evidence in support of the ultramontane views of the West.

Clearly we disagree on this issue, and in all our prior conversations you have failed to provide any evidence that would make me reconsider my position. The burden of proof - in the final analysis - lies with those who assert the idea that the bishop of Rome has always possessed universal jurisdiction.

That some Assyrians six hundred years after the events recorded in the New Testament supported a particular view of the pope's authority is hardly compelling evidence . . . especially since the West claims that its position in connection with papal authority is a revealed dogma.

The rejection by the Eastern Orthodox Churches of papal claims speaks volumes against the modern Western position.

Well, I'm not the one that brought up Nicea, so there's no inconsistency in my language.
Do you suppose our entire Faith is contained in the Ecumenical Councils? Do you suppose Sacred Tradition is composed only of the decrees of Ecumenical Councils?

Why don't we look at the evidence prior to 325 A.D.
1) The Lord states He will set one servant over His household when He leaves (Mt 24).
2) The Lord actually does this (Jn 21).
3) St. Clement rules on a matter in another country (Corinth in Greece) while St. John the Apostle is still alive, and much closer on the island of Patmos.
4) St. Ignatius states that the Church in Rome is the Church who presides in love.
5) Under the direction of Pope St. Victor, all the Churches in the Orient, East and West held local synods to discuss the Paschal controversy. This was probably the closest thing to an ecumenical gathering that the Church experienced before Nicea.
6) St. Irenaeus teaches that in doctrine the whole Church must agree with the Church in Rome.
7) St. Cyprian appeals to Rome to discipline errant bishops in Gaul and Spain.
8) St. Cyprian informs us: "[Decius] declared that he would rather have welcomed the news that a rival had appeared on the scene to claim the empire than that of the election of a new Bishop of Rome."
9) Pope St. Dionysius of Alexandria regularly inquired of disciplinary and theological matters to Rome, and himself accepted correction from Pope St. Dionysius of Rome on a doctrinal matter.

What evidence do you have for your position before 325 A.D.?
1) Tertullian opposed Pope St. Callixtus after he became a heretic, but when he was orthodox, he himself pointed to Rome as the model of orthodoxy, where "the apostles poured forth all their doctrine as well as their blood," and "from which there comes into our own hands the very authority of the apostles themselves.," and whose doctrine "against which she admits no gainsayer."
2) St. Cyprian rejected the primacy of Pope St. Stephen when he disagreed with him on a matter which an Ecumenical Council had adjudged his position to be in error, but when they were of one mind, he had no problem appealing to the primacy of Rome against the heretics, going so far as to appeal to Rome to discipline errant bishops in Gaul and Spain.

BTW, you did not respond to the original point. Do you admit that you were wrong in stating that the primacy of the three Petrine sees was instituted by an Ecumenical Council?

Blessings,
Marduk

Cool. But there's two points that need to be emphasized:
1) The connection is not merely "historical." Rather, it is foundational. As Tertullian and St. Irenaeus argued (and implied by Eusebius), for example, the very validity of a local Church rests in its ability to trace its episcopal lineage to one or another of the Apostles.
2) Given the above, your appeal to some vague apostolic authority ("including Peter") is altogether insufficient.

Cool. And once you offer proof that this is what the Catholic ecclesiology actually does, I'll concede your point. I suggest providing a magisterial document that teaches "the sacrament of episcopal orders is divided up ontologically between different sees." My understanding is that the different grades of bishop are distinguished merely by function, not essence.

Agreed. And once you offer proof that this is what the head bishop is, and not merely a bishop distinguished by a greater responsibility for the unity of the Church, and all that entails in order to fulfill that function, then I'll concede your point.

As a great Latin archbishop once said, "there are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church for what she is, but for what they think she is" (I'm not saying you hate the Catholic Church, but I've found his wisdom to be applicable to practically all instances when faced with criticisms of the Catholic Church)

Blessings,
Marduk

It is presumed to be foundational, but the Roman Church - according to modern historical information - existed prior to the visit of either St. Paul or St. Peter. Be that as it may, I do not see any reason to dogmatize the foundation of the Roman Church.

The sacrament of orders to episcopacy is one sacrament shared by all bishops. There is no distinct petrine sacrament.

Since Cyprian died ca. 255, and the first Ecumenical Council was in 325, how did he manage this?

I am simply asserting the common sacramental theology of both East and West. There is only one sacrament of orders to episcopacy, but I await your proof that there is an additional petrine sacrament.

Then why make the comment? As an Eastern Catholic I do find your comment rather offensive, because it implies somehow that I hate the Catholic Church (notwithstanding your denial of that intention). The fact that I reject the Western view of primacy does not mean that I hate the Catholic Church.

I hold that the pope is a bishop like any other bishop. I make no extraordinary claims in connection with his see. On the other hand, you claim that the bishop of Rome has extraordinary "powers" over other bishops, and that he has universal jurisdiction, something that is clearly not supported by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. The burden of proof for these extraordinary claims lies with you, and not with me.

Neither the canons of Nicaea, nor those of Constantinople I, support the idea that any bishop has universal jurisdiction. In fact quite the opposite is true. Alexandria, not Rome, had jurisdiction in the provinces of Eastern North Africa, and Antioch had jurisdiction in the regions surrounding that primatial see. Rome - according to Henry Chadwick, W. H. C. Frend, and Everett Ferguson, to name just a few scholars - had jurisdiction in the suburbicarian areas around Rome. The ecumenical councils never promoted the idea that there was a bishop who holds universal jurisdiction, nor is the idea proposed that the bishop of Rome can judge matters on his own, i.e., without the consent of his own synod, or a special synod called to adjudicate an appeal from the decision of another metropolitan (see the canons of the local synod held at Serdica).

I have never asserted the idea that the whole faith is contained in the decrees and canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, so I do not know why you have asked these questions.

That said, the issue of the primacy of the bishop of Rome is not a matter of faith as far as I am concerned, but is a matter of ecclesiastical government which developed over time as a matter of human custom.

For a lot of Catholics, that is the essence of the Catholic Church. The Papacy is the Church is the Papacy.

You've made my point. As your response demonstrates, your criticism against the papacy is really not based on anything but your own perception. You are quick to answer that bishops cannot usurp primacy because it is not a matter of power, but please tell us why you think that jurisdiction/authority over other bishops is necessarily a matter of power. Convince me that having such a prerogative can never be a matter of service for the Church.

There are two things wrong with your statements here:
(1) The dogma on the primacy does not claim to be "divinely revealed" (compare, for instance, with the Marian dogmas). What it teaches is simply that St. Peter was established by Christ to be the head of the Apostles, and this headship has been acquired by the bishop of Rome through apostolic succession. Once again, that famous saying from the Latin Archbishop comes to mind (I keep forgetting his name).
(2) Rome did not hold the primacy because of her socio-political import. She held the primacy because of her apostolic establishment by Sts. Peter and Paul. This is readily proven not only by the witness of numerous early Church Fathers in the Orient, East and West, but also by the fact that even after the capital of the empire moved to Constantinople, Rome still held the primacy.

I guess you will have to part company with brother Laka, as he believes that Scripture demonstrates that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. You can't even appeal to St. Cyprian since he specifically asserted that St. Peter held the primacy, an assertion made before and after his disagreement with Rome. In fact, I don't think you can appeal to any patristic source to support your claim.

That's fine, because the Catholic Church nor her apologists have ever made such a silly claim. On the other hand, the primacy of St. Peter is evident, as St. James deferred to the authority of Peter and Scripture as the basis for his judgment.



No problem - because, as stated, that's not what the dogma claims.

Blessings

Where does the Catholic Church make a claim that primacy is a special sacrament? That's pretty creative. You make a claim for the Catholic position which it does not even teach, and then knock it down with a bunch of empty rhetoric. That's called a straw man, btw.

Blessings

If the dogma was actually the straw man caricatures you have proposed, I wouldn't believe in it either.

Well, the dogma really has nothing to do with Alexandria and Antioch, so I don't know why you bring them up in connection with it. Is this another straw man?

Good. But when are you going to start addressing the true Catholic position, instead of proferring these straw men? Can I ask once again if you can show us where the Catholic Church teaches that the notion of primacy divides the episcopacy into parts?

Yup!

Brother, the only one here "to assert such a thing" is you, in your straw man arguments against the Catholic position.

Blessings

Where does the Catholic Church teach that there is "more bishop" in one Church than in another? Just because one bishop has a greater jurisdiction than another does not mean he is more of a bishop than any other bishop. It simply means he has a greater area of service, and a greater responsibility/function in preserving the unity of the Church. I think what you're fighting against are really your own misconceptions, not the actual teaching of the Catholic Church.

Where does it say that? The Lord says the greatest among you must serve. He doesn't say none of you shall be greater than another. Talk about injecting your preconceived notions Scripture!

No. It is primacy within collegiality (which includes synodality). According to Canon 34/35, the recognition of the head bishop is not restricted to the synodal or conciliar context.

Blessings

Once again, I need to remind you that the dogma on papal primacy does not claim to be a "revealed truth." It is simply an affirmation of the ecclesiological life of the Church since her inception.

Blessings

Isn't a dogma, by definition, a "revealed truth"?

I wish the Lord used the plural "servants" in his exhortation, just to make it clear for us. And I wish he didn't take just St. Peter aside on the seashore and tell him "feed my sheep." And I wish he never told Peter to be the confirmer of his brethren. And I wish he didn't just give the keys to Peter even though there were other Apostles present. And I wish God never gave just Peter a special vision to teach the most significant ecclesiological action for the life of the Catholic Church - the inclusion of non-Jews into God's Kingdom.

Blessings

well said!

Apotheun:
No one but you is claiming here the higher grades of bishop are separate sacraments. you're trying to create a strawman.

What is being pointed out is that their position may grant authority over their brothers.

A metropolitan has authority over his brothers, even in the most conciliar of Orthodox Churches: at the very least, to call them to Synod. In many, far more.

A patriarch has the same authority, but over metropolitans as well as mere bishops: to call forth the synod, and usually to chastise those who disobey the synod, or even to excommunicate them.

The catholic view is, while not stated as such, effectively that of the pope being archpatriarch: having the ability to function as patriarch over the other patriarchs.

Position grants authority. Does not an Auxiliary Bishop hold the sacrament of Episcopal Holy Ordination? Indeed. Can he not ordain? Of Course. But he MAY NOT ordain unless his brother bishop in authority over him says he may.

Likewise, the primate of a synod, as head of a synod, can call the synod and enact its decisions; many have other granted authorities as well, which the Synod has granted them and their successors.

They mirror St. Peter in miniature, not the Pope mirroring them enlarged. The Pope is the Echo of St. Peter, successor, heir, and holder of his position, with its authority. And by virtue of his not appointing an heir, but leaving his authority to Rome, St Paul as well.

Sorry I forgot to address this part of your quote in my original response.

I suspect you are injecting some misconceptions into what I've written, or perhaps you were asking them leading questions.

Can you tell us what exactly you asked them, and what exactly their response was?

Blessings

Dear brother Laka Ya Rabb,

What is it about my description of the High Petrine view that you disagree with?

Agreed. But your statement here simply reinforces my belief that Orthodox rhetoric against papal primacy is based on misconception.

I'll hold off comment until you explain what you feel is unacceptable about the High Petrine view.

Blessings,
Marduk

As an Orthodox Christian, I believe the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church. At this point in history, this precludes us from agreeing on the topic at hand. Unless of course you hold fast to what Apotheoun articulated.

Regarding your explanation of a high-petrine view I can only say the Patriarchal encyclical of 1895, found here [orthodoxinfo.com] can clarify what is unacceptable to me. Paragraphs 14 to the end speak directly to this.

Wow! I have been away from my computer for the last three days and was not able to check the thread until today. Thank you all so much for your responses and the discussion that has ensued. There is a lot of information to take in, and I will need to think about this some more.

I do like the distinctions that Mardukm makes in an understanding of the Petrine view. That's something I hadn't considered before. Like most artificial distinctions for the sake of study and argument, things are not quite so cut and dry in the real world.

There are two more questions that I have:

1. Mardukm, you keep saying that the role of the Pope of Rome as defined by Vatican I is not a "revealed truth". However, isn't that what a dogma is? Isn't a dogma a codification of a revealed truth? It seems to me that the Fathers of Vatican I were saying that their understanding of the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church has been revealed by the Holy Spirit and belongs to the Deposit of Faith. Obviously, they have to say that it was there from the beginning but did not reach full flowering until 1868, but it's hard to get around their not saying it is a revealed truth. Could you clarify a little more your definition of dogma, and how a dogma cannot be a revealed truth?

2. What impact does it have on a Council when all the bishops who disagree with the dogma as proposed leave town before the vote. I realize this was done out of respect for the Pope, but it seems to me that it could call into question the definition of the dogma especially since the vote had to be unanimous in order to pass. Does anyone know if there is a precedent for such things?

A few other random thoughts:

In reading the Canons of the Council, it seems hard not to get an Absolutist understanding of the Papacy. After all, if that were not the case, why would the Melkite Patriarch and the Melkite Synod of Bishops feel the need to accept Pastor Aeternus with the disclaimer of the Council of Florence? It seems to me that there was a limited acceptance of the teachings of Vatican I by the Melkite bishops.

Everything about the understanding of infallibility screams that the Pope can act alone without having to consult anyone else, that he is not subordinate to an Ecumenical Council, and that he has universal and direct jurisdiction over the entire Church. (I realize I am paraphrasing, but I don't have the Canons in front of me directly.) Obviously, in reality and practically speaking, no Pope has ever acted this way. Even when the Popes defined the two Marian doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Dormition, they consulted the bishops of the world before doing so. Popes just don't act willy nilly and would be foolish to do so. However, nonetheless, the written Canons are there, and what is to stop a Pope in the future from calling on those to act unilaterally. In one word, nothing. It's almost a provision that would allow the Pope to impose "martial law" on the Church if needed.

This touches on the related issue of what happens if the Bishop of Rome were ever to fall into heresy, but I will leave that for another day.

It seems to me that this is what frightens the Orthodox. No matter how many assurances they receive from Rome that the Pope will not impose his will on them and that he will respect their rights as patriarchal churches, Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus will always be in the back of their minds. If the Pope does not need to consult other bishops or convoke a Council to define a dogma of the Faith, then what is to stop him from trying to impose his will on them. It is hard to be in a communion of love with someone whom you fear could turn on you at any moment.

I hope that language is not too strong, but that's the sense I get. For example, regarding the "filioque", many Eastern Orthodox will say that it's meaningless that Rome does not require Eastern Catholics to add it to the Creed because the Pope could change that whenever he wanted to. The Orthodox would be worried that something like this could happen.

I agree that the Pope has a primacy; however, the only thing that is going to make a difference to the Orthodox and aid the cause of reunion in this matter is a clear example of collegiality and synodality from the Popes of Rome. As they say, "Actions speak louder than words".

There is much more that I could, and would like to, write, but I feel as though I am rambling at the moment, and it is getting late. I hope what I have written makes sense.

Thanks again for all the responses and the great discussion. I look forward to more posts.

-Scott

Dear brother DTBrown,

To be perfectly clear, I believe the incident with Pope St. Victor does indeed demonstrate universal primacy in action. The entire Church held local synods on the Easter issue at the direction of Pope St. Victor. And from what few accounts we have on the incident, the issue was that Pope St. Victor was abusing his authority, not that he didn't have it.

That's what I meant when I agreed with you that papal authority can be misused. If it is not used in the spirit of service in order to build up the Church, then it is being abused. That doesn't mean it does not exist.

On the other hand, I also believe that the incident clearly demonstrates the collegial nature of papal decisions. That's a point I have argued about with Catholic papalists.

Catholic papalists who think the canon that states "there is neither appeal nor recourse to a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff" indicates some kind of absolute power by the Pope are just being eisegetic. All that canon means is that the Pope is the highest court of appeal. This is simply a repetition of the Sardican canons that were confirmed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. It does not mean the Pope is above correction.

It was one of the greatest apologists of the Latin Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, who asserted that if the Pope misuses his authority to tear down and not build up the Church, then we as Christians are obligated to correct him. But let me add that this is done through the proper canonical channels - our bishops, as occurred during the Paschal controversy. I reject the Eastern Orthodox standard set by the events after Florence, that permits laity to judge and depose their bishops without the benefit of synodical trials (it's useless for EO apologists to appeal to the synod that occured after the bishops were already driven out of their Sees).

No, I definitely do not believe Rome is to be blamed. Rome was simply staying true to the Canons and ancient Tradition, as will be explained in more detail below. If anything, the local Latin bishops had the blame.

That's a wrong comparison. There is no indication that President Jackson opposed the action, but was in fact just reflecting the mentality of the times, which imbued a prejudice against Indians as a foreigners and third-class citizens in their own land.

In contrast, Rome had been very supportive of the unique Tradition of Eastern Churches for almost 200 years (somewhat less for the Oriental Churches, because of lack of knowledge of our own unique Traditions). As it relates to just the incident at issue (since there were numerous actions evincing Rome's support for the Eastern and Oriental Traditions), Rome gave the Easterns their own bishop so they wouldn't have to be completely dependent on the Latin ordinary (notwithstanding that for the first several years, he was effectively a suffragan of the Latin episcopate), Rome did not stringently enforce the two decrees before cum data fuerit, and he gave explicit dispenstaion from the decrees to the Eastern bishop in 1925.

You make it appear so cut-and-dried, when in fact the situation was much more complicated.

The fact is, Catholics were a minority group prone to discrimination in those times in a sea of Protestatism. Catholics were "un-American" and were not allowed to hold office; most Catholics were "lower class" and lived in ghettoes; the Blaine Amendment was passed which was primarily directed against the Catholic school system. The most numerous and most influential of the Protestants were members of the Episcopal Church, and the most obvious distinguishing factor between the Episcopal Church and the Catholic Church to the regular joe was indeed the celibate priesthood.

The fact is, the decree was not intended to be absolute, but rather dependent on the circumstances of the country, so when the circumstances changed the restriction would naturally be lifted by virtue of the decree itself.

Now I ask you this: was the idea of a celibate priest so absolutely foreign to the Eastern Tradition as to be a valid cause for schism? There is all this talk of the responsibility of the Pope. But what about the responsibility of the laity and priests? Was it right that they should schism for the sake of a disciplinary matter? Was it right for these folks to polemicize the whole episode as a wholesale disrespect for the Eastern Tradition?

If your answer is "yes", does that mean you think that the schisms within the Eastern Orthodox Church over non-doctrinal matters (ROCOR, Old Calendarist, Old Believers, etc.) were/are a good and holy thing? Please respond to that question.

It appears you have a misunderstanding of the Petrine ministry. It is not meant to force anything on a bishop. In fact, Vatican 1 asserts that the Pope must use his authority to uphold, defend, and promote the local bishop's proper, ordinary and immediate authority. It's imminently inconsistent - to say the least - for Easterns to complain about the boogeyman of papal tyranny, and then expect him to act in such a fashion when it suits them.

The fact is, the Pope did a very great thing for the Easterns that had never been done before. He gave them their own bishop within the canonical territory of Latin bishops. By doing so, he granted them a dispensation from a universal Canon law of the Church. In the early Church, when a Christian immigrated to a country with a different Rite, that Christian was merely absorbed into the new Rite. When there were enough people of a different Rite in a local diocese/see, the local bishop would accomodate those people in charity by establishing a parish for them using their own Rite, but those parishes were always and ever under the omophorion of the bishop in that territory.

Now, it was very obvious that the Latin bishops in those days were prejudiced against the Eastern Tradition. Without the Pope's intervention and dispensation from the universal canon law of no two bishops in a particular territory, the Eastern Catholic Church would have disappeared from United States a long time ago.

Blessings

I think you're imposing a later Tradition onto a Divine mandate. The hierarchy of head bishops did not just come out of the blue from the minds of the Fathers at Nicea. Rather, it was simply applying and confirming a more ancient model, as the language of Canon 6 from Nicea clearly indicates.

Jesus Christ established St. Peter as the head of the Apostles. In the first century, there was no such thing as "territorial jurisdiction." After the model of the Apostles, there was simply one head bishop among the bishops of all the nations (apostolic Canon 34/35). This is evident from the example of Pope St. Clement who judged on a disciplinary matter in a different country, the visit of St. Polycarp from Smyrna to Pope St. Anicetus to discuss the matter of Easter, and the fact that Pope St. Victor was able to solicit the entire Christian world to hold local councils to discuss the Easter issue. As the Church grew larger, microcosms of this primordial apostolic model cropped up locally. In these times, it appears that Alexandria and Antioch obtained prominence, probably due as much to the fact that they were centers of scholarship as their Petrine foundation. It cannot have been its scholarly reputation alone that merited their ecclesiastical importance, because, for example, Athens was also a center of scholarship and had apostolic foundation, but never gained such prominence. This increased prominence probably occurred some time in the 3rd century, no earlier, because, for example, when Tertullian writes against the heretics, he identifies Ephesus, not Antioch, as the Christian center of Asia.

Then comes the First Ecumenical Council who ruled: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also."

What was this "ancient custom" if not the model of the Apostolic college with its head. Further, the language admits that Rome is the exemplar of this ancient custom.

I debated an Orthodox apologist recently who insisted that the episcopal order is of divine institution, and the Church cannot abolish what is of divine institution. I responded that I agreed, but pointed out that this divine institution included not just the episcopal body, but an episcopal head for that body. Since the episcopal head is of divine institution, then neither can the Church abolish it.

What the First Ecumenical Council did was establish territorial Patriarchates for the proper administration of the Church, applying and confirming the primoridal apostolic model. But such a canonical/ecclesiastical establishment can in no way abolish the divine mandate that the episcopal body of the Church has an episcopal head.

Blessings,
Marduk

To recap the development
Primitive church:
Peter (Pope)
Other Bishops and Apostles

Early Church model
Pope
Patriarchs
Other Bishops

Only Slightly later:
Pope
Patriarchs
Bishops
Chorbishops

A little later still
Pope
Patriarchs
Metropolitans/Archbishops
Bishops
Chorbishops

Eventually:
Pope
Patriarchs
Metropolitans/Archbishops
Bishops
Auxiliary Bishops
Chorbishops

This would be the most full form of the hierarchy... but Chorbishop is seldom used. A Chorbishop being permitted to ordain minor orders only, having no vote in the metropolitan, patriarchal, nor grand synods, and likewise no vote for auxiliary bishops, represents a clear "lesser form" of bishop. It's not a function of their ordination that differentiates a chorbishop from a patriarch... it's the enthronement.

In the west
Pope
Eastern Patriarchs
Metropolitan Archbishops
Bishops
Auxiliary Bishops

Note that "Western" patriarchs are not in point of praxis patriarchs, but metropolitan archbishops with precedence.

In the EOC:
Patriarch
Metropolitan/Archbishop
Bishop
Auxiliary Bishop


but in the EOC, the authority is limited severely for Metropolitans and Archbishops, and Chorbishops are an honorific, sans episcopal ordination. Hmmm... Oh, and the Antiochian Synod having an even more abbreviated form:

Antiochean Orthodox:
Patriarch
Metropolitans
Auxiliary Bishops

Really gives pause...

So? Weren't we were talking about the foundation of the episcopal lineage?

Me neither. And apparently neither did Vatican 1, because that Sts. Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome is not part of the dogma of the primacy.

The sacrament of orders to episcopacy is one sacrament shared by all bishops. There is no distinct petrine sacrament. [/quote]
Agreed. I'm glad that the Catholic Church does not teach that either.

Don't hold your breath, because I never claimed there was a petrine sacrament.

Blessings

That's a wierd question. I said that the Council judged his position, not St. Cyprian.

Blessings

Then why do you keep asking "where is that found in the Ecumenical Councils?"

I gave you a whole list of proofs from Tradition. No response?

Blessings