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

Dear brother Todd,

I agree with most of what you say here. The reason I felt comfortable translating to Catholicism was because I felt secure that the Pope has always exercised his primacy in a collegial manner. Granted, there are those who complain "well, it's not synodal," but at the very least I have never seen evidence of the one-man tyrannical autocracy that non-Catholic polemicists portray the Papacy as.

I do have a disagreement with the Eastern Orthodox portrayal of a head bishop as a mere figurehead, even more with their denial that there is such a thing as a head bishop. People keep talking about what the Catholic Church must do ecclesiastically speaking for unity to take place. Well, if the talks are sincere, we should also talk about what the Eastern Orthodox must do ecclesiastically speaking for unity to take place. You (or as you portray Eastern Orthodoxy) speak of an ontological equality of bishops, but do so in a way which deprives the head bishop of any and all status as a focal point of unity by depriving him of any jurisdictional authority.

The fact is, there is something unique about the head bishop that distinguishes him from his brother bishops, a distinction which is easily reflected in the Apostolic Canon 34. The Canon specifically states that the whole body of bishops CANNOT DO ANYTHING without the agreement of the head bishop; likewise, the head bishop cannot do anything without the agreement of his brother bishops. But notice it does NOT say that the whole body of bishops cannot do anything without the agreement of bishop X who is NOT the head bishop. The current EO understanding of the Canon permits any bishop to take the place of the head bishop in the Canon, but this is plainly NOT what the Canon states. This uniqueness translates to a special charism, a special gift to be able to preserve unity in the Church, at whatever level.

I know you have been privy to past discussions in the CA forums regarding this issue, and the EO there have proffered such unbelievable statements as "the Synod can go ahead and do things without the head bishop" and "the Synod is above the head bishop" (which is the heresy of conciliarism). You yourself will perhaps not agree with these statements, but it is the inescapable conclusion of an ecclesiology that states the head bishop has no special status but one of mere honor among his brother bishops. Do you believe this is what the Apostolic Canon intended?

One other thing that the Orthodox need to do in talks aside from admitting their own ecclesiastical departures from patristic standards (as well as remind the Catholic Church of her own in order to maintain balance) is to let go of the impression that collegiality was something new at Vatican II. Collegiality was intended by Vatican I, and would have been canonized in its decrees if Vatican I was not interrupted by war. Non-Catholic polemicists like to treat Vatican I as a Council intended merely to increase the Pope's power, which is untrue if one reads the extant official commentaries of the period.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually, present Catholic doctrine does not require that the Pope act collegially. It is the teaching of Vatican I, which is reflected in the decree Pastor Aeternus and in the Official Relatio delivered by Bishop Gasser at that council on 11 July 1870, and the teaching of Vatican II as well, which is clearly stated in the official notification that appears at the end of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, that the Pope can act without the agreement of the College of Bishops, but that the bishops can only act with the Pope's prior consent, and this teaching is clearly in violation of canon 34 of the Apostles. Moreover, throughout the second millennium, the Popes have taken it upon themselves to act unilaterally, both in matters of dogma and in matters of Church governance, and this again is contrary to canon 34 of the Apostolic Constitutions.

The primate is not a mere figurehead in Orthodox theology, but he is not allowed to act independently of his synod, and this conforms to the teaching of canon 34 of the Apostles. Also, it is best to avoid the language of "jurisdiction" because this legalistic approach actually damages ecumenical dialogue by distorting the role of the primate, which should be an office of service, and not of power over others. Now, even the Eastern Orthodox fall into this type of legalistic language, as Fr. Schmemann quite readily admits, but for the sake of ecumenical rapprochement it should be avoided.

Not being Eastern Orthodox, I must admit that I have not experienced what you are talking about here in connection with a "rotating" primacy, but I can say -- based upon what I have read from Eastern Orthodox theologians -- that primacy does not "rotate" among the members of the Synod, but can only be held by a bishop who is the local or regional primate, because primacy is attached to a local Church, and not to any individual man. Now, that being said, it is important to note that local and regional primacy have disappeared entirely from the Catholic West, because it has been overshadowed completely by the universal primacy of the Pope, who controls every aspect of life within the Church through the Roman Curia, and this clearly is contrary to canon 34 of the Apostles.

Certainly, I have run into Eastern Orthodox Christians who deny the concept of universal primacy, but I believe that they are a minority within the Orthodox world, at least in my experience. I have read books by some of the greatest theologians of modern Orthodoxy, and all of them have held that primacy must operate locally, regionally, and universally, within the overall synodal structure of the Church, because -- as they constantly point out -- there can be no synod without a primate, and no primate without a synod. Now, as everyone knows, until quite recently the Roman Bishop had no synod, and even now, the Synod of Bishops, which was instituted after the close of the Second Vatican Council, has no real authority within the Roman Church, that is, it remains a purely consultative, and not a deliberative body. In the Roman Church all authority remains vested in the Pope, and as the documents of Vatican II indicate, the Pope can act without the College of Bishops, but the College of Bishops can only act with the consent of the Pope (See the official note of clarification at the end of Lumen Gentium). Now, of course, this teaching does not conform to the ancient canon 34 of the Apostolic Constitutions.

As I see it, both sides -- when they have departed from the ecclesiological teaching of the Church Fathers -- must return to the practice of the first millennium, that is, to the practice of the undivided Church, which clearly affirmed the doctrine of primacy within synodality as normative: locally, regionally, and universally. Now, of course, this will mean that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will have to recognize the universal primacy of the Pope, but at the same time, this universal primacy cannot be conceived in terms of power over others, nor can it be conceived in terms of legal universal and ordinary jurisdiction; instead it must be seen as a diakonia (service) of love in defense of communion. Whle the Roman Church, for its part, will have to recognize the second part of canon 34 of the Apostles, that is, it will have to recognize that the Pope cannot act unilaterally. That being said, structures will have to be developed that ensure that universal primacy functions as it should, that is, that it functions within the synodal structure of the Church, and not independently of it, because it is only in this way that the universal primacy of the Pope can safeguard unity, and not become a source of ecclesial division.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I recommend that anyone who is interested in these issues get a copy of the "Eastern Churches Journal" (Volume 4, Number 3, Autumn 1997), and read the article written by Archbishop Vsevolod, because his article explains the failings of both sides as it concerns the primacy, and offers constructive ideas for the restoration of communion between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Church.

Apotheoun,


Please forgive. I see I misunderstood your statement,

to mean that if a decree (eg the Creed) was not meant to be a norm, it was optional.

So I see you meant that councils and decrees were out of the ordinary, ie, they didn't happen in the normal course of events. But I think, we agree that they set a norm for the Church.

But I don't understand why there is an issue of jurisdictional authority for Papa. It seems quite natural and supernatural that there would be a visible head who can decide disputes when Bishops cannot agree about a serious matter - one which pertains to his office has Chief Shepherd in instructing the faithful. Certainly Papa Benedict holds that he has such a duty to insure that faithful do not err in matters of faith and morals.

As an example of such authority , take for example, the instruction, Humanae Vitae - Orthodox Bishops appear not to be in agreement on the matter. There, Pope Paul VI layed down a teaching for the Catholic Church which has all the signs of infallibility. If such a teaching is infallible, the visible Father of all men would certainly have the authority to enforce that teaching - by law if necessary. Or consider again the instruction of John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis - that appears to be a definitive statement which the Pope can enforce, as universal Father, if there were wayword Bishops (Eastern or Western) who refused to submit to such a teaching. That is how I understand jurisdiction. Universal jurisdiction for the Church would, therefore, need to be invested in one who in faith and morals cannot err - one, like Peter, who has been given the task to strengthen the brethern.

Here is what you said canon 34 states:

Canon 34 is not logically opposed to the primacy as understood by Catholic teaching (including universal jurisdiction of the Pope). It is not clear at all that the canon is referring to the Bishop of Rome as merely one among equals. In fact, one could easily imagine the Father of all instructing his brother bishops on that very issue without denying he himself has universal jurisdiction over the entire flock. They are not mutally exclusive.

It is obvious that you subscribe to the position of Vatican I, and accept the idea that the Pope is the "universal Father" within the Church, but you are simply begging the question, that is, you are assuming that the Roman teaching of the 19th century is true, which -- of course -- is the very point in dispute, because the Orthodox clearly do not accept Vatican I. Now, the only way that I can see the restoration of communion between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches, based at least upon your own comments in this post, is for the Eastern Orthodox to convert en masse to the Roman Church, and that simply is not going to happen.

The outcome of ecumenical dialogue is not a foregone conclusion; and so, it is odd that Westerners continue to approach these issues in a way that involves the complete and total acceptance of Western doctrine by all the participants in the process.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I understand the Western position very well, because I was a Latin Catholic for 17 years, and you can go to my website and read essays and papers that I have written on the Western doctrine of the Magisterium. Nevertheless, I must admit that if Westerners insist upon a type of unity that is truly foreign to the ancient Church, it follows logically that there is really no point in pursuing ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, because they are unlikely to accept the Roman universalist ecclesiology of Vatican I, because as Cardinal Ratzinger himself admitted in his book "Principles of Catholic Theology," the Orthodox have maintained unchanged the form of the Church as it existed in the first millennium.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello 1m, Universal jurisdiction is not an exercise in primacy. It is another thing entirely.

Roman Catholics are always confusing the two, to the detriment of the church.

One other point I believe bears mentioning, and in this I speak for myself alone (so don't blame this on all Orthodox, it's my opinion). Many Roman Catholics seem to assume that once there is some sort of reconciliation between east and west the Pope of Roma will automatically gain a position of supremate (Roman style "primate") over the Orthodox churches.

This is not a certainty, far from it. While I am in agreement that there should be a universal primate, I am no longer sure that Roma automatically deserves the role. I believe it should earn back the position of trust the church would place with it.

I may be harder on this issue than many others, but it is apparent to me that the divergence of Roma from the ancient Christian communion to such a great extent is a sign that the See no longer has the qualifications to serve in the capacity.

This may require a probationary period before all the churches are comfortable working together again, and a subsequent Council to recognize some historic See as the universal primate. Something like a two-stage reconciliation process. Roma should be willing to abide by the decision of a subsequent Council, just like all the particular churches. This will give all parties a time to adjust to the new realities.

I am sure the bishops of Roma would deport themselves quite well in the interim.

+T+
Michael

Canon 34 of the Apostles states that the primate ". . .not do anything without the consent of all." The present Roman doctrine of the primacy explicitly permits the Pope to act unilaterally, and this clearly contradicts the ancient canon. Primacy and synodality are inseparably bound together.

God bless,
Todd

Let's bring a real-life example to this question, so as to site what differences there are to the two models of authority.

The former Bishop of Sergievo was resigned by the Russian Patriarch with his Synod. The Bishop is still Bishop, but according to the ROC he is without jurisdiction and retired.

The Bishop decides to join with the EP under the Exarchate of W. Europe, he is accepted and functioning as suffragan to the Metropolitan of Paris.

One Church claims the Bishop is in violation of Canons, the other guaratees him to function freely. The ROC says that any priest who celebrates with the Bishop is excommunicated according to the Canons, yet the EP denies this.

Who decides this matter and how?

There are several options:

(1) The two patriarchs and synods could simply excommunicate each other with rancorous hatred, and cause a schism between their respective Churches.

Or (2) The all powerful Roman Pontiff, who is accountable to no one but himself, and who alone can judge disputed matters within the Church, simply enters the fray without being asked, and issues a decree and creates a schism between the two respective Churches.

Or (3) the two patriarchs and synods work out their differences through prayer and fasting, and the man at the center of the dispute, for the sake of the unity of the Church, retires to a monastery and lives the remainder of his life in contemplation of the Holy Trinity. Finally, as a part of this option, the two parties involved in the dispute could appeal to a third party (i.e., the Roman Bishop) to arbitrate for them.

Clearly, the solution to the problem is not one of raw unbridled power, but of humble service and charity on the part of all concerned.

You really do have in for the Papacy. I notice no else here is wearing the jackboots you keep putting on the Popes feet every single time you write about the Papal office. You always phrase any reference to the Pope so negatively.

The Catholic church has canons that govern the relationships of Bishops to each other. Good order has been thought of when the canons were set out. I suppose the various Orthodox Churches are in the same boat.

Evidently you were only able to read point number 2.

Michael,

Thanks for citing that example. I think sometimes people (myself included) get so involved in debating abstract ideas that practical considerations can be pushed to the side. Do you have a link or know of a place where I can read about that situation in more depth? A robust ecclesiology should be able to handle occurances like the one you mentioned.

Well, #2 was worded in a rather negative light.

I personally had decided what would have been best would have been the scenario described in #3 before I read your post.

Dear Alex,

I'm puzzled by the above post -- in particular, you seem to think that I said a lot of things that I didn't actually say.

At the same time, however, it appears that I may owe you an apology, if I misinterpreted you when you said:

I understood this to include agreeing with Todd's assertion that some Latin doctrines are incorrect (not merely stated a different way, having a different emphasis, etc.) Perhaps I took the word "all" a bit too literally, and I'm sorry.

God bless,
Peter.

FYI, I believe that the Latin doctrine (the official ones, that is) are all correct, although I wouldn't necessarily speak about them in the same way that most Latin would. (For example, you might remembering me saying that what Vatican I says about "papal" infallibility can actually be said about each and every bishop.)