Dear Cavaradossi,
As always, your incisive input is appreciated.
The Latin understanding of local synodality is closer in fact to the Russian understanding, which is to say that that Latins traditionally understood regional primates as having a form of ordinary jurisdiction within their local synod, but one which differed from the ordinary jurisdiction of a bishop over his diocese. The ordinary jurisdiction of a bishop over his diocese is said to be immediate, because it comes directly from God, whereas the jurisdiction of a primate over his synod in the Latin understanding is said to be mediate, because it is a primacy established by church law, a position which you will find bears great similarity to the Russian understanding of primacy.
There are points of agreement here. I agree that a similarity is the understanding that the position of metropolitans and patriarchs are derived from the canons. I would aditionally agree with the ROC paper regarding the supremacy of a local bishop in his diocese, which Catholic ecclesiology also affirms ("
In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, our Lord Jesus Christ, the supreme high priest, is present in the midst of those who believe...the pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely. Nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff, for they exercise an authority which is proper to them..."-
Lumen Gentum). The difference is that in the Latin Catholic understanding (really, the Catholic understanding, in general) - as far as this particular point about the canonical basis of the authority of metropolitans and patriarhcs - the source of their primacy is the ancient canons themselves, not the extant local Synod. This is a particular point of disagreement between the EP's and the MP's position, and on that point the Catholic position is closer to the EP's position.
And as far as the Latin Catholic Church's ecclesiological praxis on the regional Church level, the ROC paper is correct that it is rather different from the Easterna (and Oriental) praxis, whether Orthodox or Catholic. Eastern and Oriental synods as a body, whether Orthodox or Catholic, have ordinary authority over the individual bishops; however, Latin synods (or, as they are called, episcopal conferences) do not have this ordinary authority (as you implied, they did in the past, but now they don't). But at this point, the Eastern/Oriental Catholic ecclesiology comes much closer to the EP's position. In Eastern/Oriental Catholic ecclesiology, which is also expressed by the EP's position, the head bishop of the Synod embodies/represents the ordinary authority of the Synod over the individual bishops in such a way that the head bishop in his person can also be said to have ordinary authority (or jurisdiction) over those bishops. Of course, this ordinary authority, even when exercised by the primus personally, is
NEVER unilateral, but is always collegial in nature (i.e., bound by canon and moral/divine law to work in communion with his brother bishops)..
Also, I think it is worth noting that the understanding of the EP and the Russians is not entirely mutually exclusive. Metropolitan Elpidophoros' article on primacy
Agreed. The difference I perceive is simply in the role of the primus on the universal level. Otherwise, I am sure they are identical. I believe the difference is readily reflected in what many percieve to be a power struggle between the EP and MP. It's my opinion, actually, that the ROC paper is more immediattely directed at the EP than at Rome (with natural consequences for the Roman claims, of course).
—despite some of its disagreeable points (the idea that the primate is the source of his own primacy rather than the recipient of it is downright laughable)
I'm not aware that the EP response to the ROC paper ever made this claim. IIRC, the EP position is merely that the primacy is embodied in the person of the primate (not derived from the synod). I don't believe the EP position can be characterized as saying the primate is himself the source of his primacy (seriously - that is even worse than the Absolutist Petrine claims about the papacy!). My impression is that the EP position is something similar to what I stated earlier about the canons being the source of the primacy of Patriarchs and Metropolitans, not the extant synod. Of course, the EP's rationale for the very existence of primacy on ALL levels in the Church is not the canons, but the theological analogy with the Primacy within the Godhead. So I don't see how it can be stated that the EP position claims that the primate is
himself the source of his own primacy.
I believe the EP's position makes a lot of sense. If, as the ROC paper claims, the synod and its election of the primate is the source of the primate's primacy, then it stands to reason that the primacy rests in the synod, and if the synod chooses not to elect anyone as primate, then everything would be fine. I mean, if the primacy rests in the synod itself, it would not matter if the synod has an actual primate or not. The EP position, with which I cannot conceive a Catholic disagreeing, is that the reality of primacy has a theological, historical and even mystical basis that goes well beyond the temporal will of a synod. In fact, as the ancient canons assert, it is
necessary for a body of bishops to recognize their head. So the primacy cannot possibly flow from the election - rather the election flows from the requirement to have a primate. I think the EP's position can be more properly characterized as saying that the
office of primacy naturally exists as part of the Church by a theological impetus, and in that sense, its authority is not derived from the local synod.
makes a good point insofar as he seems to recognize that the power of primacy is inherently one, and that the same power is exercised at all levels of the Church (that is why all who exercise primacy have Peter as their type).
Agreed. I believe the analogy with the primacy of Peter is well grounded in the Fathers. I reject the idea that every bishop is a successor of St. Peter - not primarily because it diminishes the unique succession in primacy of the bishop of Rome, but because it diminishes the fact that
all the Apostles are foundations of Apostolic Succesion - but I do agree greatly with your own statment that "all who exercise primacy have Peter as their type." But do you think the analogy with Peter would gain much official backing, whether from the EP or MP. I do note that it lends credence to the unity of primacy of which the EP speaks and you mention later on.
Where he runs into trouble is failing to note that the same power of primacy is manifested differently at different levels of the church, something which plainly can be seen from the Latin division of ordinary jurisdiction into the categories of mediate and immediate or from the Russian understanding that the prerogatives of primacy are intimately connected to the canons.
I also agree with this. I found most of the EP response to the ROC paper right on, but this is the one point which I felt needed much clarification. Clear distinctions must indeed be made on the roles of the different levels of primacy in the Church. Caveat: I really don't think the EP is unaware of these distinctions; I just think that the purpose of the response (to establish the role of primate on the universal level) overrode that particular concern and it was simply inadvertantly neglected. I would agree with you that, whether inadvertant or not, its absence on the topic of primacy deserves critical notice.
Anyway---Naturally, I don't agree with the ROC paper that the primacy on the universal level is one of mere honor with no jurisdiction, but I do agree that distinctions must be made. Further, I agree with the ROC paper that the purpose of differentiating is to preserve the primatial authority of a bishop in his local Church X against the possible intrusions of the primacy of a head bishop in the larger Church, which includes the local Church X. But, again, I naturally disagree that the only solution is to deprive the head bishop on the universal level of any jurisdiction whatsoever, and make his primacy one of mere honor. The other very viable option, presented by the EP position, is to regard the functioning relationship of a primate on the universal level with his brother bishops in the Church as a whole as identical to the functioning relationship of a primate on the patriarhcal level with his brother bishops in the patriarchate, or the functioning relationship of a primate on the metropolitan level with his brother bishops in the metropolitan see. I do note with satisfaction that the EP position applies the ancient AC34 on all levels of the hierarchy, including the universal. In Catholic canonical jargon, this would be translated as follows:
A head bishop on any level of the hierarchy has
oridinary (i.e., inherent) jurisdiction in the entire level of the hierarchy of which he is head. But this
ordinary jurisdiction is only
proper (i.e., normative and usual) (1) in what pertains to his own local diocese as a bishop, but not proper in any other diocese; (2) what pertains to the Church
as a whole of which he is head.
The role of a head bishop on ANY level of the hierarchy is presidential; this is distinct from the role of a local bishop which is truly monarchial. This is, contrary to the distortions of the Absolutist Petirne view, what is proferred by the Catholic Church. This distinction between "ordinary" and "proper" is already evident in our canons, even as regards the papacy (which, of course, does not really matter to Absolutist Petrine advocates, since they believe the Pope is not bound by the Canons), and also, I believe, the position of the EP - a primate with real teeth and authority, by no means a mere figurehead or yes-man of a synod, but also by no means an absolute monarch.
Regardless of that, I think the position that deprives the head bishop on the universal level of any authority, assigning to him a position of mere honor, flies in the face of Tradition. If one looks at the ancient role of the archbishop of Rome in the Church universal, on the one hand, or the role of the archbishop of Constnatinople among the Eastern Churches, on the other, it is evident that they did not possess mere honor. As mentioned earlier to brother Epiphanius, Orientals also refer to their head bishops with terms such as "primacy of honor" or "first among equals," but these signifiy something with real authority and prerogatives. I do sincerely believe the OOC's on the whole have faithfully preserved the true, patristic understanding of these terminologies. Many in the CC's and EOC's have as well, but many also have not.
But, returning to the topic of the necessary distinctions, this is a particularly sore point I have with the Absolutist Petrine distortion. As a High Petrine advocate, I have always opposed styling the bishop of Rome as "universal bishop," not only because it is logically inconsistent with the Divine constitution of the Church, but also because it is flatly denied by the Tradition of the Latin Church herself, as evidenced by the exhortations of two of her greatest primates - Pope St. Leo and Pope St. Gregory. They denied this very title offered to them for the very reason that to be so styled would mean there is no need for any other bishop in the Church.
There is not a single official, magisterial document of the Catholic Church that styles the Pope as "universal bishop." Unfortunately - VERY unfortunately - this is a rather popular apologetic among well-meaning, though misinformed Catholics. When I was still a regular at CAF, I objected more than once to an article at their website trying to justify the notion that the Pope is a "universal bishop." Their rationale is "well, we don't mean what the title on its face presumes." My reaction was "If you know what the title naturally and historically means, why even try to promote it at all with inventive sophisms, especially as there is a segment out there (the SSPX) who use the term in its normative, aberrant sense?!" My argument was that the Pope is not a universal bishop, but a head bishop of the universal Church, pointing out the very real difference between a bishop and a head bishop in terms of roles and prerogatives.
It is the ecclesioglogical position of the Catholic Church that head bishops in general can do all that a local bishop can do in his local diocese. But there is a stark difference between the Absolutist Petrine and High Petrine understanding of this prerogative of head bishops, particularly as it applies to the Pope of Rome. To Absolutist Petrine advocates, the principle allows them to pretend that the Pope can REPLACE a local bishop at his mere and sole discretion. To High Petrine advocates, the principle only permits the Pope to SUPPLEMENT the authority of the local bishop when and only when the authority of the local bishop has been impeded. The Pope,
as Pastor Aeternus explicitly asserted, cannot himself be the cause of impeding a bishop's divinely-instituted authority, but is, rather, obligated to defend, promote and strengthen it. That is an ecclesiological responsibility of his prmatial office. Actually, this is a general obligation of every primate on each level of the hierarchy in Catholic ecclesiology. But it is even more fearsome and serious an obligation for the head bishop on the universal level -- for while the source of the prerogatives and attendant obligations of patriarchs and meteropolitans (and other head bishops of local churches by other names) is canonical (a point of agreement with the ROC position), the principle that the source of the prerogatives of the head bishop on the universal Church is divine also dictates that his attendant obligations are divine imperatives, not merely from man. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility (which is, in fact, a blibilcal principle - to whom much is given, much more is required). The Absolutist Petrine claim that the only limit to the Pope of Rome's authority is divine law (i.e., he has no authority to contradict the divine dogmas and morals of the Church, but the rest he can change at his sole discretion without agreement or consultation with any bishop in the Church) is baloney. If other head bishops on the "lower" levels of the heirarchy cannot do such things unilaterally since they are constrained by the divine constitution of the Church to always work with their brother bishops out of a canonical obligation to respect the divine (i.e., immediate) and inherent (i.e., ordinary) authority of their brother bishops, how much more so must it be for the Pope whose obligations are borne not just of a canonical imperative, but a dvine imperative? It is biblically and morally inconsistent and irresponsible for Absolutist Petrine advocates to claim higher prerogatives for the papacy than any other bishop, yet attempt to diminish the natural, attendant restrictions that come with greater responsibility.
PLEASE forgive my lengthy rant. Whenever I imagine the damage that these Absolutist Petrine distorters are doing to the unity of the Church, I just need to vent!
In any case, Cavaradossi, to get back to the topic of the ROC position and the EP response, can you please respond to the following dialectic:
(1) Would you agree with my earlier statement that the purpose of the distinctions proposed by the ROC is to preserve the rights and prerogatives of the bishops and head bishops)?
(2) Do you think that the biblical principle "to those who have been given much, more will be expected" is applicable to ecclesiology?
(3) If so, would you agree that the EP's position that primacy has a theological, not merely canonical, basis actually places a greater restriction via obligation on a head bishop than a merely canonical imperative affords?
(4) If this greater obligation was explicitly spelled out in Canon law, do you think that would mollify the concerns of the ROC about preservaing the rights and prerogatives of the bishops, as well as making the necessary distinctions?
(5) As noted elsewhere, the CDF relatively recently affirmed the Pope is constrained not just by Divine Law, but also by the Divine Constitition of the Church (a notion which was already explicitly asserted by the German and Swiss bishops immediately after V1, and to which Pio Nono gave his explicit approval). If this principle was enshrined a manner more relevant for the Othodox, such as Canon law,, or, better yet (since Absolutist Petrine advocates always claim that the Pope is not constrained by Canon Law), in an official papal decree, promulgated by synodal authority (I'm thinknig of the hopeful reinstitution of the Roman Synod by Pope Francis),do you think that would greatly help the theological dialogue between the EOC and CC regarding the Papacy?
Finally, I would like to offer what I perceive to be the good points about the ROC paper on primacy and the EP response:
From the ROC paper:
(1) An explicit affirmation that unity in the Catholic Church is a
Eucharistic unity with the bishop of Rome. Though this is actually a deficient description of Catholic ecclesiology (the actual teaching of the CC is that the unity must be with the head
and other members of the College), it is better than the non-Catholic polemic I often (not always) read that argues the Catholic position is based
merely on submission to the bishop of Rome - PERIOD, with no account of the pre-eminence of the Eucharist in Catholic ecclesiology (no less a prominent Council than Trent affirmed the foundational place of the Eucharist for the unity of the Church).
(2) Differentiation of the primacies on the different levels of the Church hierarchy.
(3) The jurisdiction of head bishops on the local level is canonical.
(4) A head bishop on the regional level has jurisdiction throughout his Church in which he is head (indeed, it it is a jurisdiction that is different than that of a bishop for his diocese). The position I often (not always) read from Orthodox (which I refer to as “Low Petrine”) is that a head bishop has no jurisdiction anywhere except his local diocese.
(5) An understanding of the role of the local bishop in the Church that is essentially identical to the Catholic understanding.
From the EP response:
(1) An affirmation of a theological foundation for Primacy on the universal level.
(2) That AC 34 applies to ALL levels of Church governance, including the universal.
(3) Primacy on all levels is inherent in the office, not delegated (this is, btw, what is exactly meant by the Catholic terminology “ordinary” when describing the jurisdiction of a bishop or head bishop).
For our readers, here are links to the ROC paper and the EP response:
https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344/http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/first-without-equals-elpidophoros-lambriniadisWell, that's it for now. I look forward to more of your incisive comments.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. Brother J Michael, I was planning to explain those nuances I mentioned in an earlier post, but maybe these recent posts will be sufficient for a while as matter to chew on?