www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Universal Jurisdiction

I decided that maybe this post should start a new thread.

Continuing the text of Matthew 16:18
"Blessed are you, Simon, Son of John! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." (Peter is divinely inspired to make a proclaimation of faith.) "And I tell you,Peter, you are rock and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

It is interesting to note some of the writings of Orthodox Theologians concerning the Petrine Ministry of the Church of Rome.
"The important point for us to see that in the light of the doctrine of universal organic Church unity the need for and the reality of a universal head, i.e. the Bishop of Rome, can no longer be termed an exaggeration. It becomes not only acceptable but necessary. If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal (Ecumenical Bishop) as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head, because Christ is her invisible head, is theological nonsense."

Any comments?
Stephanos I

Would you please tell us who wrote/said that, and where it can be found? Thanks!

Mor Ephrem,
It was a quote from Alexander Schmemann from a book entitled,
"The Primacy of Peter"
Stephanos I

I think Fr. Schmemann makes sense.
My question would be what he means by universal jurisdiction. Does he include such things as the installation/deposition of bishops being done by the pope alone? Does he mean that the pope would have equal authority in each diocese as the local bishop, and in fact more?

St. John Chrysostum believed that even though Peter was able to do BY HIMSELF what all the Apostles could do together, he always practiced his prerogatives collegially instead of monarchially.

Similarly, the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction, but for the sake of the peace of the Church, he should use his powers WITH his fellow bishops, instead of lording it over them. I think the current Pope follows this model pretty well.

If the Bishop of Rome has the authority to act without the other bishops (which it seems he does), then why would it be necessary to use his powers "WITH his fellow bishops?" I mean to say that, if this is a God-given authority (which I believe it is), why would it cause disagreement (which is insinuated by "for the sake of peace)? If this is a God-given authority, the other bishops have no right no complain when the Bishop of Rome uses his authority "without" them.

Logos Teen

Dear Logos Teen,

One way to look at it, which is a very imprecise analogy, is to compare it with the military. A Captain has full authority within his company, yet for the sake of cohesiveness and peace within the company, he rarely goes to the Lance Corporal and tells him what to do. There is a proper chain of command, and the Captain would normally go through the Platoon Commander, then he to the Platoon Sergeant, and he to the Squad Leader, etc. For the Captain to skip the chain of command leads to inefficiancy and resentment.

Likewise, while a Lance Corporal in another company must follow the orders of the Captain, the Captain would certainly almost never give a direct order to the L.Cpl. under normal situations, rather he would make a suggestion to the other Captain.

Also, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the highest ranking general in the USMC, would rarely ever act without the support or at least understanding of the other general officers, even though he doesn't need their support for his command to have force. This prevents resentment and ensures greater fidelity and cohesiveness.

Whenever there is a proper chain of command, efficiency and peace demand that it is followed, and that the generals work together.

Forgive me for a very imprecise analogy, but I hope you get the picture.

Justin

Good point Justin!
And I think that this is the understanding of the Latin Church. Maybe the Pope and Bishops have not always behaved in a proper manner, but that should be the ideal.
To "keep the bond of peace", that we may truly exhibit the love of Christ in the Church and seek the harmony and unity of all.
Peace
Stephanos I

There is legitimate authority yes but our Lord reminded his disciples that "it must not be that way with you" where people lord it over others, rather "we must seek an authority of service within the Church. That kind of authority will be respected rather than detested.

I think it may be erroneous to read too much into Fr. Schmemann's words. Consider the following quote, also from him: Note the balance that Schmemann applies to the question. He details first the essential ecclesiology and then adds to this the charisma of primacy as an accidental supplied for the promotion of order and unity in the ecclesia. Thus, the earlier quote regarding the expression of a universal focus of unity is not part of the ecclesiological essence of the Church, but a charism provided by God as a dispensation for our existence in the world. As I said just recently to an Orthodox friend when he was critical of these principles of primacy, I can see how you want to make sure they are defined as epiphenomenal to and supervenient on the essense of orthodox ecclesiology, and it seems better to understand them as divinely ordered for the promotion of ecclesiastical unity, that this divine ordering is not a right of the bishop, but a priviledge or honor, and one that can be lost if it should become an impediment to that same purpose.

Is "personal infallibility" (as Schmemman wrote)correct terminology for the doctrine of papal infallibility? Is this one of the misconceptions of papal infallibility that prevents the Orthodox from accepting the doctrine? As I understand it, the Pope's infallibility is not attached to his person, but to his office. Thus, it is truly a charism from God that is not affected by human fallibility.

Attaching it to his person, one can foresee the sensationalist rantings that may result: e.g., "Popes have sinned so he cannot be infallible"; "Popes have made wrong disciplinary decisions so he cannot be infallible"; "Popes have made errors in the scientific field so he cannot be infallible"; "if the Pope is infallible all the time, he can basically do anything he wants"; etc.

If one understands that it is attached to his office specifically for the duty of that office, (i.e., as pastor of all Christians) one can begin to accept the possibility, practicality, and even necessity, that God would grant such a charism to preserve the pure doctrine of His Church.

And if we understand that the primary duty of that office is to preserve unity, one can begin to understand and accept the notion that infallibility is a charism that is necessary that would be exercised only during disputes of doctrine, for it is only during such times that the issue of unity (the primary concern of that office) comes to the fore. In other words, one can at least begin to feel secure that infallibility is not a fiat for the Pope to do whatever he pleases.

The term "personal infallibility" seems to me to be divisive language that serves only to perpetuate misunderstanding. Am I understanding this correctly?

Francis,

I believe Schmemann is refering to personal in the sense that it is tied to the person of the Pope not that he is personally infallible. The Orthodox understand the difference they simply disagree with the Catholic understanding of Papal Infallibility. Infallibility for the Orthodox can only be exercised by a council, never by any one bishop alone. This issue has nothing to do with misunderstanding. No matter how the Catholic Church defines or redefines this issue, I don't think anything short of a complete renunciation of Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction will satisfy the Orthodox Church.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Well then, the status quo will exist until the End.

Lance,

Thank you for the candid reply. Now I must ask: since the less ecumenical Orthodox regard the view of universal jurisdiction as schismatic, if not downright heretical, would the Orthodox regard St. Chrysostum's view of St. Peter's prerogative (that is, that he could do BY HIMSELF what all the Apostles collectively could do) as heretical? I mean, this is basically the basis of the Catholic position. Also, I think there are numerous other Fathers who regarded Peter as the universal pastor of the ENTIRE Church- once again, the basis for the Catholic understanding of the papacy.

Now, if the prerogatives of the Apostles are passed down to the bishops of today, why should not there by a bishop who has the prerogative that Peter enjoyed? If Sacred Tradition has any say in the matter, then if it is wrong to have a universal pastor today, surely it is wrong for Peter to have had such a prerogative (after all, it IS called APOSTOLIC Tradition), and Chrystostom and all the other Fathers who believed in Peter's universal jurisdiction would have to be branded as heretics by modern Orthodoxy.

How would Orthodox respond to this?

In Christ always

Francis,

I leave that question to be answered by the our Orthodox brothers on the forum. I would think, however, the entire question relates back to what Schmemann was talking about. The Pope of Rome should have Universal Primacy but this does not imply Universal Jurisdiction or Papal Infallibility. The Orthodox while recognizing St. Peter as First, do not think he had any power different than or above the other Apostles. As First he was spokesman and head of but also equal to the other Apostles. So they would interpret St. John Chrysostom and the other Fathers differently than the Catholic CHurch does. Nor do I think that it is entirely correct to read Universal Jurisdiction or Infallibility into the Fathers who had no concept of such ideas as we now have them.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Francis,

I leave that question to be answered by the our Orthodox brothers on the forum.

----------

WELL, HERE GOES -

One has to be very careful when using quotes from the early saints and church fathers to justify papal supremecy. For every quote you supply to try and justify it, we Orthodox can come back with another quote to counter balance it.

What has to be taken into consideration when using a quote is the the context and situation in which it is being stated. An example would be your quote from St John Chrysostom regarding papal supremacy. However, St John also is quoted as saying -

["The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession." - St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew]

Which would counterbalance your claim.

We Orthodox Catholics have never had a problem with papal primacy. We do, however, have a big problem with papal supremacy which is an entirely different thing (as you will see further down on the Orthodox responses to the pope on his role in a reunited church).

Examples of using the early church fathers and saints to counterbalance your claims:

Cyprian, unwilling to grant even a simple primacy to the Bishop of Rome, considers that "the whole body of bishops is addressed in Peter." St. Cyprian rightly concludes that the "Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter." (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate,
cap. 4-5)

"I believe that by the Rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles." (St. Hilary, 2nd Book on the Trinity)

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, et. al.) NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM applies these
passages to the Roman bishops as Peter's successor. How many Fathers had busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose
commentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Theodoric... has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Peter is the consequence of the commission and
promise to Peter. Not one of them has explained the Rock or foundation on which Christ will build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but
they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ, often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with the other apostles,
the twelve being together the foundation stones of the Church." (Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, p. 91)

"This one (Peter) is called a rock in order that on his FAITH (Rock) he may receive the foundations of the Church."� - St. Gregory Nazianzen,
� � � � � �� 26th Discourse

"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession." - St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew

"The Rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Peter. It is on this Rock of the confession of faith that the Church is built." - St. Hilary of Poitiers, 2nd book on the Trinity

Hilary wrote the first lengthy study of the doctrine of the Church in Latin. Proclaimed a "Doctor of the Church" by the Roman See in 1851, he is called the Athanasius of the Western Church.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� Cyril of Alexandria

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Upon St. John, Book JJ, Chap. XII
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

'"The word "Rock" has only a denominative value-it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles."

In his Letter to Nestorius, St. Cyril says:

"Peter and John were equal in dignity and honor. Christ is the foundation of all -the unshakeable Rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice."

"Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named." - St. Jerome, 6th book on Matthew

"Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but the faith of St. Peter of which it was said, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail'; certainly it is the confession of faith which has vanquished the powers of hell."

"Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name... to Peter because he borrowed from the Rock the constancy and solidity of his faith- thy Rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a Rock, thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is built upon the Rock... (the profession of faith in Christ Jesus)." - St. Ambrose: The Incarnation

(Note: St. Ambrose often spoke disparagingly of the Bishop of Rome as usurping the legitimate rights of other bishops in the Church. Cf. On the Incarnation, On St. Luke, and On the 69th Psalm.)

St. Augustine, one of the most renowned theologians of the Western Church, claimed by the Roman See as "Father and Doctor", says:

"In one place I said... that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock... but in fact it was not said to Peter, "Thou art the Rock," but rather "Thou art Peter." The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, "the Rock"... (ed, for his faith) ...Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable." (St. Augustine, Retractions - 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)

St. Augustine also adds: "Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them "I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee."
(ibid.)

To Augustine, this made Peter somewhat less than an infallible teacher, without his fellow bishops and all the faithful by his side. It is this statement by Augustine which Pope
Hadrian VI (1522-25) had in mind when he declared:

"A Pope may err alone, not only in his personal, but official capacity."

In still another letter Augustine quotes Cyprian, with whom he is in full agreement:

"For neither did Peter whom the Lord chose... when Paul afterwards disputed with him... claim or assume anything and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held a primacy
and should rather be obeyed by newcomers..."

Finally, Augustine concludes, near the end of his earthly life, with these words on the "Rock of the Church":

"Christ said to Peter... I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, 'I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of
Cephas' - however, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ." (Retractions, 13th Sermon)

==========

It always amazes me when I read here and elsewhere, that the Pope has asked the Orthodox what role they see the Pope playing in a reunited church AND THE ORTHODOX HAVE NOT GOTTEN BACK TO HIM! What utter nonsense! To those that state that... I suggest they pick up a copy of Orthodoxy In Conversation by Emmanuel Clapsis and read the chapter that contains the Orthodox responses to the RCC thus far on Papal Primacy (Supremacy). [You can pick it up at St Vlad's Bookstore}

Here are but a few responses to the RCC on the Popes role -

["The Church is a communion of believers living in Jesus Christ with the father. It has its origins in the prototype in the Trinity in which there is both distinction of persons AND UNITY BASED ON LOVE, NOT SUBORDINATION."]

[The famous 34 Apostolic Canon states: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongst them and account them as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent.....but neither let him (who is first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity..." From this Canon, it is thus evident that the regional primacy can be conceived not as a power or jurisdiction but only as an expression of the unity and unanimity of all the bishops, and consequently of all the churches, in the area.
We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome's claims to universal primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the identification of this primacy as "supreme power" transforming Rome ino the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and the Church itself. The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judaeo-Christian period this centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the church of Rome - "presiding in agape (love)" according to to St Ignatios of Antioch.]

[In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. WITHIN AN REINTEGRATED CHRISTENDOM THE BISHOP OF ROME WILL BE CONSIDERED AS PRIMUS INTER PARES SERVING THE UNITY OF GOD'S CHURCH IN LOVE. HE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SET UP OVER THE CHURCH AS RULER WHOSE DIAKONIA IS CONCEIVED THROUGH LEGALISTIC CATEGORIES OF POWER AND JURISDICTION. HIS AUTORITY MUST BE UNDERSTOOD, NOT ACCORDING TO STANDARDS OF EARTHLY AUTHORITY AND DOMINATION, BUT ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF LOVING MINISTRY AND HUMBLE SERVICE (Matt. 20:25-27).}

OrthoMan