www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Canon Law question

Please explain, or post a link.

1) What may seem impossible to man may be possible with God.

2) Are the Eastern Orthordox a unified body such that there is a head that can speak for the Orthodox to confirm what you have said?


1) What may seem impossible to man may be possible with God.

2) There has never been an Ecumenical Council which has rejected the idea - so the Orthodox ought at least be open to the possibility.

3) The idea has some precedence in the Church before the division.

I have never read, or seen anything in print by Metropolitan Zizioulas, which in any way shape, or form, indicates that he would accept the idea of universal jurisdiction. Moreover, the articles that I have read by Meyendorff, Afanassieff, and Schmemann reject the concept of universal jurisdiction as well, because the idea is foreign to the theology of the Church during the first millennium, and the concept actually -- as they emphasize in their writings -- witnesses to a rupture between theology in the proper sense of the term and the canonical tradition of the Church.

You are right, and that is why I foresee a day when the Roman Church itself repudiates the concept. After all, nothing is impossible with God.

In spite of the divisions within Eastern Orthodoxy, the Orthodox Churches are far more united theologically and liturgically than the Roman Church. The Roman Church is no longer the monolithic unity she once was. Besides, I am sure that the Orthodox would simply respond to your question by saying that they have a single head, Christ.

I agree, and as I said above, the repudiation of the concept of universal jurisdiction is possible.

Irrelevant. The East holds that ecumenical councils and the decrees (horoi) that they issue are extraordinary, and are not meant to be the norm within the Church. In fact the Fathers were always reticent to issue dogmatic decrees (horoi), and only did so when it was absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the idea of universal jurisdiction, as formulated in legalistic categories, is foreign to the Byzantine tradition.

The concept arose in the Western Church during the second millennium, and as Ratzinger said, "Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Principles of Catholic Theology," page 199]

A fair reading of history doesn't confirm that statement.

Pax,

lm

Thank you for your opinion, but I disagree with you.

Even Cardinal Ratzinger disagrees with you on the issue of the primacy, because as he said in his book, "Principles of Catholic Theology":

It seems that you're saying that the Creed is optional. Also I thinks this contradicts your previous statement about the importance of Canon 34 of the Apostles supra.

No where have I said anything about the creed being optional, and I am at a loss as to where you came up with that idea. What I have said is that the Church Fathers were always reticent to issue dogmatic decrees (horoi). There is nothing in any of my statements to date that would lead one to logically conclude that I am making the creed "optional." The fact that the issuance of a decree (horos) is an extraordinary event, and not an ordinary event, does not make the decree issued optional.

My response was to Todd's assertion that if Rome does not cave on universal jurisdiction, then we might as well bag any effort at reunion between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches.

My point (stated rather flippantly) was that Rome will never deny what she has asserted canonically as essential to her nature and the nature of the primacy of her bishop. That such an understanding might be recast in light of the praxis of East/West relations in the first 1000 years is more to the point than any denial or rejection of dogma. To IM's point, Todd is rather dogmatically asserting something never asserted dogmatically by an ecumenical council.

Metropolitan John Zizoulas, hardly a theological hack but rather instead one of the greatest lights of Orthodoxy in our century, clearly sees some value in dialoging with Rome on the primacy. Are we to presume that he is unaware of Rome's dogmatic positions? Or does he recognize the existence of the possibility of reconciling what may amount to only apparent opposites?

Gordo

Gordo,

Put yourself in the shoes of an Eastern Orthodox Christian, because if you do that, you will realize that from his perspective Rome is asserting something (i.e., universal jurisdiction) that has never been asserted dogmatically by an ecumenical council.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - As far as Metropolitan Zizioulas is concerned, I have never read anything written by him where he indicates that the Roman concept of universal jurisdiction is acceptable to the East. Quite the contrary, he has firmly rejected the notion.

Gordo,

I agree that Metropolitan Zizioulas is no fool, but I think that you are confusing universal jurisdiction with primacy, and these two things are not identical. That being said, I think that the Eastern Orthodox will more than likely accept the latter, but not the former.

I was just wondering what is the difference in semantic content between the expressions "Universal Bishop" and "Ecumenical Patriarch"? They seem to me to mean the same thing.

First, it should be noted that the term "ecumenical" comes from the Greek word "oikein" (to inhabit), which in turn is related to "oikos" (house or household), and so, the term "ecumenical" does not per se mean "universal." Second, as far as the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" is concerned, it is a title used by the Patriarch of Constantinople in order to indicate his primacy of honor among the four Eastern Patriarchs. Finally, as a professor in one of my classes at Franciscan University pointed out, the term "Ecumenical Patriarch" can in fact be applied to all five Patriarchs within the Pentarchy, because of the authority given to them in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils; and so, it is simply a matter of custom that has restricted its usage to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the East, and this has been done simply in order to recognize his primacy of honor -- after Old Rome -- among his equals within the Pentarchy. In other words, it has nothing to do with the Western legal concept of universal jurisdiction.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The customary reservation of the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" to the Patriarch of Constantinople can be compared to the Western reservation of the title "Pope" to the Bishop of Rome. That being said, I am sure that most people at this forum are aware of the fact that the Patriarch of Alexandria also uses the title "Pope." It really is important to remember that titles like these in no way imply that a particular member of the hierarchy has universal ordinary jurisdiction.

Nicely stated, good post.

Thanks,
Michael

Dear Todd

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

BTW I do not myself think that "primacy" and "supremacy" are synonymous or even related concepts. I'm quite happy with the pre-1054 understanding (once we can pin it down).

Beannachd leat.