www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils

But for whom was it a "breakthrough"?

Moscow has stated that it will never agree to it.

Serbia has said likewise.

Bulgaria has disowned it as a "waste of time."

Rome has said that it has elements of ecclesiology unacceptable to itself.

I think Cardinal Kasper's enthusiastic words may be those of a father enamoured with what he naturally sees as the beauty of his own creation, his own newborn babe, while the maternity staff shudders to behold such an ugly child!

His Eminence is enthralled because he believes that at Ravenna the Orthodox have been persuaded to change their ancient ecclesiology and accept a "global primus."

It seems that he considered it a breakthrough because


Father, you're a clergyman of the ROC, so I'm certainly in no position to tell you what Moscow thinks on the issue. But I remember Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev mentioning that the problem is that the document, in its definition section, implies that the Orthodox Church consists those churches in union with Constantinople. I'm not quite sure that he denied that there could be primacy.

I'll have some time over the next 15 hours or so to listen to the interview with Archbishop Hilarion again, as well as a similar one with Metropolitan Kallistos. I'll give a better summary then.

Communion with Constantinople is certainly normative for any Orthodox Church, but there are occasions when it is not so. For example, at the time of the Constantinople-Bulgarian schism when Constantinople went out of communuion but all the other Orthodox Churches remained in communion with Bulgaria.

You may be thinking of the Assembly in 2005 in Belgrade where the two co-chairmen, Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Zizioulas, pushed the delegates to voting on a Statement which allocated to Constantinople a similar role in convening Councils as Rome has. That caused a very negative reaction from the Russians who pointed out, quite rightly, that Orthodox policy could not be decided by vote at an ecumenical meeting with Catholics.



Primacy on a regional level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. But primacy on a global level does not exist.

Here are the words of Cardinal Kasper on Ravenna 2007:

"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that
there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The
second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a
primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that
is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in
Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first
among them."


Here is the response of the Orthodox Church of Russia. This is Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."

From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

More from Archbishop Hilarion on universal primacy...

Papal-primacy compromise out, Orthodox church official says
5/30/2007
Catholic News Service (www.catholicnews.com [catholicnews.com])

MOSCOW (CNS) - A Russian Orthodox official who represents his church on a
Catholic-Orthodox commission said his church rules out any compromise on
papal primacy.

"Historically, the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Christian church,
from our point of view, was that of honor, not jurisdiction -- the
jurisdiction of the pope of Rome was never applied to all the churches,"
said Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna and Austria, who represents the
Russian Orthodox Church on the International Commission for Theological
Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches.

The commission is scheduled to meet in October in Ravenna, Italy, for the
10th plenary since its creation in 1979. After a six-year break, the
60-member commission reconvened in September to debate conciliarity and
authority.

"There can be no compromise whatsoever" on papal primacy, Bishop Hilarion
said in a May 28 interview with Russia's Interfax newsagency.

He added that "the aim of the theological dialogue is not at all to reach a
compromise. For us, it is rather to identify the church's original view of
primacy."

The Moscow Patriarchate was drafting its own document on primacy, which
would help him "assert our official point of view" at future talks, said
Bishop Hilarion. [This document was completed and presented to all delegates
at the commencement of the Cyprus meeting. So far nobody has leaked it -Fr A]

"These are the questions around which principal problems will emerge,"
Bishop Hilarion said. "I protested and will continue to protest if such
important theological and ecclesiological questions are put to the vote.
What is at stake here is not to identify a majority or minority opinion, but
to find the truth."

Bishop Hilarion also said the commission's composition failed to reflect
"the actual distribution of powers and views in the Orthodox world," since
each Orthodox church was represented by two members, despite its size.

"The millions-strong Russian church is represented in the commission by only
two delegates, while any other Orthodox church, even if smaller numerically,
is also represented by two delegates," he said. He added that the Orthodox
co-chairman, a representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, should
act as a moderator and not impose his views on others.

He added that Russian church leaders were against calls for Pope Benedict
XVI and Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to
attend the Ravenna talks.

"When the pope of Rome and patriarch of Constantinople meet, the secular
media, who have a poor knowledge of refinements of Orthodox ecclesiology,
tend to present it as a meeting of the heads of the two churches – Catholic
and Orthodox," said the bishop. "However, the Orthodox church has a
structure different than that of the Catholic Church, as we have no single
universal primate. ... There must be no illusion that there is such a
hierarch."

Historically, untrue. But necessary to support all that "Two Romes have fallen. . ." nonsense. The very fact that a certain Church would lay claim to being the "Third Rome" indicates that, in its mind, at least, there very much is a Petrine office at the universal level. Their main issue is they do not hold it.

If that were the case the concept of a universal primacy would have been embodied in the sacred canons regulating the life and structure of the Churches of the first millennium.

I find it interesting that an Eastern Catholic who seems to be arguing against much Roman teaching is nevertheless supporting the idea of Rome's authority over all the Churches and Patriarchates.


The Third Rome concept is usually spoken of with a certain amount of derision by Russian churchmen.

It was in the sixteenth century that a monk named Filofei, first spoke of this Third Rome

"The Church of old Rome fell for its heresy; the gates of the second Rome, Constantinople, were hewn down by the axes of the infidel Turks; but the Church of Moscow, the Church of the new Rome, shines brighter than the sun in the whole universe. Know, then, pious Prince, that all the realms which hold fast to the Orthodox Christian faith are now gathered together in thy dominion. Thou art the one universal Sovereign of all Christian folk; thou shouldest hold the reins in awe of God; fear Him who hath committed them to thee. Two Romes are fallen, but the third stands fast; a fourth there cannot be. Thy Christian kingdom shall not be given to another."

I suppose that one could argue that if Moscow ever did have a place as the Third Rome, it too fell in 1917.

However, Russia did exercise a ministry of solace and service for the many centuries when the Orthodox of the Near East, of Greece and the Balkans were under the yoke of the Muslims and many times Russian diplomacy was able to lessen the plight of the Christians.

It is quite possible that Russia will assume that role again, as for example with the Serbs of Kosovo, or the Cypriots. Thanks to Russian diplomatic endeavours Christian churches are being built in Muslim countires (not many but a few) and in Israel and also in places such as Nepal and Thailand, Indonesia, etc.. Russia is conscious that she must act as a wise and zealous steward of the power which she now has since the fall of Communism to play a role in assisting Orthodox Christianity around the world. One might have expected Constantinople to take on this role, and indeed the Greeks have done a great deal, but Russia's resources far outweigh Constantinople's.

I don't think it is realistic to speak of it as the Third Rome, even though the Patriarch wears the White Cowl of the Roman Popes, but it will almost certainly come to a prominence in the Orthodox world.

I should clarify my remark above. When I wrote "Eastern Churches" I was referring specifically to the Eastern Churches presently in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Whatever Eastern Catholics may think about papal infallibility and whatever they may think about the Eastern code of canon law, Rome certainly understands papal infallibility as a dogma intended for all Churches and believers within the Catholic Church. I honestly do not see how one can get around this. One can dissent to the dogma, and the Vatican seems willing to tolerate this dissent for the moment, but the dogma remains.

The more interesting question is, What does it mean? Dogmas are always subject to re-formulation; they can often by improved, refined, and "corrected." It has often been pointed out that the dogmas of infallibility and jurisdiction were formulated in a Western legalistic idiom unacceptable to the Eastern Churches. What might these two dogmas look like if they were re-stated in an Eastern idiom? Is it possible? But this does require that we try to think out of and beyond our present ideological boxes.

I personally believe that the way forward is to re-read the writings of St Leo the Great and the other popes of the first millenium. Is there a truth here that needs to be preserved and protected?

Not necessarily. A great many things that the Church has or does are not embodied in the canons, or not embodied in a specific manner. But the primacy of the Church of Rome was accepted even in pre-Nicene era, and in the post-Nicene period it was acknowledged in a number of implicit ways, such as the final appellate role of Rome confirmed by the Council of Serdica, the priority of Rome established in the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), and in the Synod of Constantinople (979-980).

Now, undoubtedly this universal primacy was defined and exercised in a manner very different from that defined at Vatican I; nonetheless, it was real, and it did exist, and it was acknowledged by the Orthodox Churches, just as it is being acknowledged again by informed Orthodox theologians. Attempts to deny that there was never a universal dimension to primacy, or that the Roman primacy never existed, is an example of putting polemics ahead of facts. And self-serving polemics at that.


I'm sure the Georgians and the Armenians would both concur with that opinion.


And what, other than force majeur, is the basis for this Russian primacy? Where are the canons that establish the Church of Moscow as equal to the Church of Constantinople, the Church of Rome, or even the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem?

This is basically my approach to questions of infallibility and universal jurisdiction. I do not deny them, but must ask what they really mean? I don't believe that the Church has given a complete definition as of yet. Vatican II certainly put a bit of restraint on the 'letter of Vatican 1.' I am taking a wait and see attitude when it comes to these questions. They might sound good on paper, but how do they work in the real world, are they workable? I understand that Roman apologists have already told us what they think it means, but they have been wrong before (e.g. limbo). Vatican 1 is still be worked out within the Catholic Church community – I think if of particular interest that a group of ultramontanists such as the SSPX is comfortable with the idea of ‘just disobedience,’ to Rome even after the Vatican 1 definition. I have often contemplated who in the Catholic Church follows the strict definition of Vatican 1? The American bishops seem to ignore Rome when they don’t like what Rome is saying. I’m sure there is a small segment that has received the teaching as it appears on paper, but the process of reception has been at best mixed, which is another indication that the doctrine is still being worked out by the church. How does it affect me, as an Eastern Catholic? I would say it doesn’t so much. I am content to allow the process to continue, to pray for the Pope of Rome, to be in communion with the Church that he is the Patriarch of. The question of if Vatican 1 was wrong or not is above my pay grade, so I uphold it with the caveat that it is still be worked out.

Bob

Bob, it's all above my pay grade, too!

I agree with you that the dogma of Vatican I is still being worked on and must continue to be worked on. The simple fact is a dramatic change has occurred since Vatican I in the ecclesiological understanding of the Catholic Church. I am referring here to the rise of eucharistic and communio ecclesiologies (see, e.g., J.-M.R. Tillard, Church of Churches: The Ecclesiology of Communion; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Called to Communion), Paul McPartlan, The Eucharist Makes the Church and Sacrament of Salvation). What is now unclear is how the dogmatic definitions of Vatican I are to be interpreted, or perhaps re-interpreted, within these ecclesiologies that have become formative in Catholic reflection.

Remember, essentially, the Russian Orthodox functionally post-date the great schism of the 11th C...

The Russian Church, as a body, has never knowingly been in communion with Rome, nor has it ever been a "1st Milenium" church; it is a direct follow-on, in many ways, of the ecclesiological changes following the Photian Schism.

Neither Catholic nor Orthodox ecclesiology is the same as it was before then; neither is authentic, neither is historic. The Orthodox have minimized the role of Metropolitans and Patriarchs, and the Catholics have migrated all power upwards.

The orthodox deny in many places that an archbishop, metropolitan, or patriarch is in any way different as a bishop; all bishops are dead equal.

The Catholics almost treat them as separatate orders.

Neither is correct; it's clear from the early fathers that the primus of a synod was more than just a bishop, but at the same time, could not act without the synod's consent. The power to call the synod being enshrined in the primus makes the primus more than just an administrator.

Neither requires a new level of ordination; but the metropolitans and patriarchs do have a higher caling and duty, and that is CLEAR from Russian praxis. Otherwise the patriarchate would rotate to whichever see the bishop was first ordained for.

Praise God!

Wouldn't it be better to say that it is normative for all the Patriarchates to be in communion with each other. In other words, simply being in communion with Constantinople does not make a Church orthodox, and moreover, it is also necessary for Constantinople to be in communion with the other Patriarchates.

One Church (or see) in isolation from all others is not catholic, nor can communion with one particular see - whether a person is talking about Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, or Moscow, et al. - guarantees orthodoxy or catholicity.

The bishops in general are successors of all the Apostles, which includes St. Peter, and so there is no unique petrine office held only by one bishop.

Primacy is not supremacy. The pope has no authority over the other self-governing Churches, because any concept of supreme authority of one bishop over another bishop, or of one Church over another Church, destroys the reality of communion, which is not about power over others, but about reciprocity and sharing in the common divine life of the body of Christ. In fact, in an ecclesiology of communion, or what Fr. Schmemann calls, a "eucharistic" ecclesiology, it is not possible for one Church (or one bishop) to have power over another Church (or bishop), because each and every particular Church is the full realization of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. In other words, authority in the Church cannot be thought of as "power over others," but must be understood as "service" to others, which means that it must not be thought of in legal or jurisdictional terms, but in terms of service and love in support of communion. As Fr. Schmemann explains, "The essential corollary of this eucharistic ecclesiology is that it excludes the idea of a supreme power, understood as power over the local Church and her bishop," because as he goes on to say, "A supreme power would mean power over the Church, over the Body of Christ, over Christ Himself," and this is simply contrary to the Orthodox faith of the Fathers [The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church, pages 38-39]. It is clear that the "sacred authority" of popes and patriarchs -- which is founded upon the unity of the sacrament of orders and the canons of the ecumenical councils -- is one of service, and so it must not be thought of in monarchical, legalistic, or jurisdictional terms. Moreover, this "sacred authority" is held equally by all who possess the grace of sacramental ordination to the episcopate. Ultimately, the eucharistic ecclesiology of the first millennium is opposed to the universalist ecclesiology of the Latin Church of the middle ages, which only developed due to the Scholastic isolation of the Latin Church from the great patristic tradition of the earliest centuries of the Christian era that is the common patrimony of both East and West.