www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Is the Ecumenical Patriarch making a power play?

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

Thank you for this latest post. Though I accept the primacy of Rome just from the plain old practicality of the matter as a witness to the world, I was always under the impression that the Vatican Council (first) was the first time the Pope of Rome claimed her prerogatives in a dogmatic sense.

Your post from the Lateran Council proves otherwise. I see that the claims of the Pope of Rome is older than I thought, not as old for it to be regarded Sacred Tradition in my view, but still, a lot older than what I have been taught and led to believe. Basically, I was taught that Rome invented her prerogatives at the Vatican Council (first).

Blessings,
Marduk

This canon seems to say that Constantinople derives its authority/prerogative from Rome. What is the pallium suppose to grant? Does the pallium grant the bishop of Constantinople the office of bishop, or simply the prerogative of second after Rome?

From my limited perspective, there seems to be something wrong if every bishop is simply a suffragan of the Pope of Rome. Of course I have perused Vatican II, and, thankfully, this does not seem to be the view of Rome anymore.

One good thing about the Lateran canon though - I think Easterns can appeal to this canon as a basis to restrict the practice of the papal prerogative to an APPELLATE level!!!!

Blessings,

Marduk

[Father Deacon Lance,

Could you give a reference to the specific canon that says this?]

I. Nice A.D. 325

Canon VI

Let the ancient customs of Egypt, Liby and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all of these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their priveleges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metrpolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it is being reasonable and in accrdance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

I Constantinople A.D. 381

Canon III

The bishop of Constantinople however, shall have the prerogativeof honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Chalcedon A.D. 451

Canon XXVIII

The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honor as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of he empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Photus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.

Quinisext A.D. 692

Canon XXXVI

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met in Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandra, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

OrthoMan

Anastasios,
I cannot point to the exact location but the Pope of Rome has been refered to oikoumenikos archeipiscopos kai Patriarches.
The Patriarch of Constantinople did not begin to be called oikoumenes patriarches until 587 AD.
Rome to my knowledge has never to this day recognized the claim of the 28th Canon of Chalcedon. (As you know the Roman position is that a council is not Oecumenical until it is received by the Pope.) The Pope has received the Council of Chalcedon as Oecumenical but has never recognized Canon # 28.
Stephanos I

Is it true that the Pope of Rome has been commemorated in the diphtychs of Constantinople since the mutual lifting of the anathemas by Paul V and Patriarch Athenagoras? And vice versa, the Patriarch being commemorated by the deacon of the Pope.

I have started the practice of commemorating the Patriarch in the Latin liturgy.

This is not true. I've been at liturgies served by His All-Holiness, and the dyptichs do not include the Pope of Rome. There are several videos of the Patriarchal lituriges at http://www.goarch.org/en/multimedia/video/ where this is clearly documented.

Priest Thomas Soroka

Stephanos, there are priests in communion with the EP who have and do commemorate the Pope in the diptychs.

I have heard from a friend in the Greek Church that Patriarch Athenagoras of blessed memory did do that on at least one occasion after the renunciation of the anathemas, although I do not know if it was recorded.

Anecdotal information is not relevant for the question at hand. Any Orthodox priest who wants to be disobedient to what has been entrusted to him can commemorate anyone he wants, but it doesn't make it right. The simple fact is, the dyptics openly proclaimed at a liturgy by the heads of autocephalous churches openly commemorate the heads of the other autocephalous churches. These lists do not include the Pope of Rome.

Priest Thomas

Now back to the real issue.
When this title was usurped by John the Faster, the Patriarch of Constantinople after a synod in 587AD he was sharpley rebuked by Pope Gregory I.
Any comments?
Stephanos I

That is a bit presumptuous, Father. The relevance is not for you to decide alone. Stephanos raised the issue and in a spirit of civil dialogue I responded to it.

I will make no judgement on those clergy, as that is entirely a disciplinary action between God, those priests and the EP. Not that my observation is significant, but in the history of the Church from the scriptures on anectodal information has been "relevant".

Athenogoras' actions stand, and there has been no renunciation of these by any successor to the Ecumenical Throne, nor even any official clarification.

Stephanos, indeed John was rebuked, publically, as you have described. However, as we know now, the issue was not resolved in Gregory's lifetime.

Unless we were hallucinating, my husband and I BOTH heard the Pope of Rome (I don't remember precisely how, it could have been by name... because it was very clear) commemorated at a Liturgy at St. Vladimir Seminary of the OCA about six years back.

The only time a primatial hierarch other than Metropolitan Herman (at that time Theodosius) is commemorated at SVS is if the Metropolitan himself is there and he commemorates all the other heads of the Orthodox Churches. Could you elaborate more, please?

anastasios

[Originally posted by alice:
Unless we were hallucinating, my husband and I BOTH heard the Pope of Rome (I don't remember precisely how, it could have been by name... because it was very clear) commemorated at a Liturgy at St. Vladimir Seminary of the OCA about six years back. ]

When the Metropolitan of the OCA is present for a Liturgy all the heads of the various autocephallous and automonous churches are commemorated.

What you heard was the Ecumenical Patriarch being commemorated under his title of 'Patriarch of NEW ROME'.

OrthoMan

I was not at that particular celebration of the Divine Liturgy at Saint Vladimir's, so I don't know from direct observation what did or did not happen. However, I consider Alice a reliable witness. She is also not lacking in awareness of Greek Orthodoxy; she can probably distinguish Rome from New Rome without difficulty (I believe she lives in New York, so she can also distinguish York from New York - or Amsterdam from New Amsterdam).
The logic of the denial appears to be that "it cannot have happened, therefore it did not happen". But many "impossible" things happen, as no doubt all of us have had the opportunity to notice from time to time.
My thanks to Alice for the information.
Incognitus

Dear Anastasios and OrthoMan,

I did not hear 'Patriarch' of New Rome.
(As if I don't know what that title is...duh..please don't insult my intelligence.)

My husband is quite theologically astute and educated.

He heard it too.

It was six to seven years ago, I cannot remember any more specifics.

All I know is that we are not ignorami, and know our Orthodox as well as RC titles, and know EXACTLY what we heard.

It both surprised AND delighted us!

Obviously, it does not have the same effect on you...

This is what is really, really, sad about the heart and spirit of Orthodoxy. What will ANY of this matter when we are before the awesome judgement seat? Will Jesus be asking us how much theological and rubric nit picking we did about the Latins? I don't think so, because they will be there right next to us in Paradise, if God has been so merciful to have let us in...

I am sorry, but I have been very dismayed lately with what the 'correctness' of Orthodoxy does to the core of the soul...the heart. I see such coldness in spirit, in writing, in vernacular towards any one who is not Orthodox...

"By their fruits, you shall know them".

Please forgive me if I have scandalized.

With love in Christ our Lord and Saviour,
Alice

P.S. Dear Incognitus, thank you for your vote of confidence! God bless you!

Marduk,

Check out the Formula of Hormisdas, a declaration of the orthodox faith which was signed by the majority of Eastern bishops in 519 A.D. Here are a few highlights...

"The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied."

"Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries."

Of course, this is far from the explicit definitions of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction made by the first Vatican Council. However, it does show that in the sixth century the papacy thought of itself as enjoying something more than a primacy of honor, and that at that time the majority of Eastern bishops agreed.

You can find the complete text at the following link:

Formula of Hormisdas [members.aol.com]

By the way, did you receive the private message that I sent you?

Anthony