www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A new model of primacy?

Being thankful for being able to participate with Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters on their board, I posit the following question/theory, stating that these thoughts are entirely my own, and I base no theological reasoning on them, other than concern for the unity of the undivided church.

Recently, Pope John Paul II spoke of a "new understanding" or a "new model" of the Papacy, given Orthodox (and I suppose Protestant) objections to the current system of Roman Primacy in the Catholic church.

Here's my question: Given that the over-arching reason for Roman primacy, in Orthodox eyes, is that it sprung out of Rome being the seat of government in the civilized world, and not simply an apostolic imperative (athough we know that the Western argument has strongly asserted that it is primarily this), what possibilities do you see for a completely new model of Primacy which would not be simply Roman primacy, per se, but Primacy, in a united Orthodox/Catholic church?

For instance, two ideas: One, where the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Roman Pope share co-equal status as "first among equals", given historical developements. Could this work? I understand there would be deep objections to this from a Roman standpoint, but I'm interested to hear some specuation on this.

Another, what about a "rotating" Primacy, let's say for five years at a time, among the five ancient patriarchates? So, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch would each get to be the first among equals for a period of time, and when his time was up, it passed on to the next patriarchate.

I'm sure these ideas seem silly to some, but given the climate, I would be interested to hear reasoned reactions, positive or negative.

Priest Thomas

I have never really understood what "first among equals" is supposed to mean in reality.

"First" implies *some* sort of primacy.

If everyone is "equal" then there is no such thing as "first".

So what is the point of designating someone as "first among equals" if that person has no real authority whatsoever? Why not just flip a coin?

You see, I didn't even think about flipping a coin! Thanks!

Slava Isusu Christu!

For some reason, I think the MP would have a problem with this!

In Christ,
mikey.

Jesus didnt give the apostols rotating primacy to the 12, i dont think that would work.
and for the Patriarch of Constatninople and the pope of rome being 1st among equals at the same time,well you know that wouldnt work.

What about each one separately, say Patriarch of Constatinople for 10 years, then the Pope of Rome for 10 years? Then repeat the cycle...

Just speculating and enjoying the answers...

Father Thomas:

Suggest you read a book called "Orthodoxy In Conversation" by Emmanuel Clapsis which you can obtain from St Vlad's bookstore. There is a whole chapter dedicated to the Orthodox/Roman Catholic consultations on 'Papal Primacy' in a reunited church.

Some of the following excerpts will either answer your questions or give feedback for further discussion. They, of course, are from the Orthodox Catholic point of view -

[The Church is the communion of believers living in Jesus Christ with the Father. IT HAS ITS ORIGINS AND PROTOTYPE IN THE TRINITY IN WHICH THERE IS BOTH DISTINCTION OF PERSONS AND UNITY BASED ON LOVE, NOT SUBORDINATION."]

{If primacy is defined as a form of power, then we encounter the question of whether in the Orthodox church there is a power superior to that of a bishop, i.e., a power OVER the bishop, and hence the church of which he is head. Theologically and ecclesiologically the answer must be an unconditional no: there is no power OVER the bishop and his church. In the canonical and historical life of the Church, however, such supreme power not only exists but is conceived as the foundation of the Church; it is the basis of its canonical system.]

[The 34th Apostolic Canon states: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge he who is first amongst them and account them as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent...but let neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity..." From this canon, it is thus evident that the regional primay can be conceived not as power or jurisdiction but only as the expression of the unity and unanimity of all the bishops, and consequently of all the churches, of an area.
We must understand the universary primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of Rome's claims of universal primacy. ORTHODOX THEOLOGY, HOWEVER, OBJECTS TO THE INDENTIFICATION OF THIS PRIMACY AS "SUPREME POWER" transforming Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself. The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical centtre of unity and agreement. In the apostolic Judeao-Christian period this centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the church of Rome - "presideing in agape (love)" according to St Ignatios of Antioch.]

[In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but a particular way of understanding that primacy. WITHIN A REINTEGRATED CHRISTENDOM THE BISHOP OF ROME WILL BE CONSIDERED PRIMUS INTERPARES 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 TROUGH LEGALISTIC CATEGORIES OF POWER OF JURISDICTION. HIS AUTHORITY MUST BE UNDERSTOOD, NOT ACCORDING TO STANDARDS OF EARTHLY AUTHORITY AND DENOMINATION, BUT ACCORDING TO TERMS OF LOVE IN MINISTRY AND HUMBLE SERVICE (Matt. 20:25-27).]

[In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus interpares within the Orthodox Catholic communon, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole church. The bisop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic Church and in times of need be its spokesman. THE ROLE OF ACTING AS THE VOICE OF THE CHURCH IS NOT, HOWEVER, TO BE RESTRICTED TO ANY HIERACHICAL ORDER WITHIN THE CHURCH, STILL LESS TO A SINGLE SEE. IN PRINCIPLE, ANY BISHOP, PRIEST AND LAYMAN MAY BE CALLED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT TO PROCLAIM THE TRUE FAITH.]

OrthoMan

Thanks OrthoMan. Sounds like an interesting book. I'll have to get it.

Of course, these are all points I know and respect regarding Roman primacy in an undivided church. Just having some fun and trying to think "out of the box."

PT

Interesting points, OrthoMan. I wonder, though, would the Pope (or anyone else) as "primus inter pares" be any more effective than, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury who functions as "primus inter pares" among Anglican bishops? The recently concluded conference in London should raise some question as to the effectiveness of primacy which is based solely upon honor with no regard to jurisdiction.

Shlomo Abun (Father in Aramaic) Thomas,

The only issue about the Pentarchy is that which tradition would be in place for each one. Would the Eastern Orthodox be willing to give up their claims to Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria?

A while back I had proposed that each of the five Apostolic Liturgical Traditions be based out of one of those five. Therefore, Rome would be the base for the Roman Traditions, Constantinople for the Byzantines, Antioch for the Antiochene-Edessan Traditions, Alexandria for the Alexandrian (Coptic) Traditions, and Jerusalem for the Armenian Tradition.

The above would only be for the members of the Pentarchy. Other Patriarchates would still exist, and new ones could be established.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

In the same vein as observed by Sir Sea Knight, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is and should be the Ecumenical Patriarch of World Orthodoxy, is not regarded by certain Orthodox jurisdictions even the slightest courtesy of being THE "Primus Inter Pares," historically or otherwise.

AmdG

Dear Father Thomas,

Bless!

I believe that the current Pope, who I think is one of the holiest men of our times, has alluded to the undivided church many times. He has asked of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch, 'what ideas do your theologians have about the role of the Papacy?' (Unfortunately, they haven't gotten around to talking about that yet..well, we haven't even gotten around to the great Orthodox council, in the making for the past thirty years, either...I guess we move VERY slowly! )

Anyway, I foresee the Primacy of the Seat of Peter as it was in the Early Church, when the person on the seat was often asked to intervene in councils and such. It was a primacy of honor and I haven't heard many Orthodox deny this, fortunately.

I don't foresee us ever accepting universal jurisdiction, atleast not over the East. In all reality, I don't think that we can expect the Papal seat to give that up in the West, as it would destroy the unity of the huge Roman Catholic Church. Then again, if we think of him as him being the Patriarch of Rome, then, the West IS his jurisdiction.

If we could unite in spiritual brotherhood, with the Patriarchs of the East in communion with the Patriarch of Rome, then, that is the union that I can best see coming about. We cannot undo history, but, we can do our best to restore it as closely as possible, while respecting the changes history brought about in the West.

As I have said before, we are as incomplete without the seat of Peter, as he is without us, and THAT was the Christ centered spirit of the Early undivided Catholic Church.

Most respectfully in Christ our Lord and Saviour,
Alice

[I believe that the current Pope, who I think is one of the holiest men of our times, has alluded to the undivided church many times. He has asked of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch, 'what ideas do your theologians have about the role of the Papacy?' (Unfortunately, they haven't gotten around to talking about that yet..well, we haven't even gotten around to the great Orthodox council, in the making for the past thirty years, either...I guess we move VERY slowly! )]

Alice, please read my post from earlier today! The accusation that we Orthodox have not given any feedback to the Popes request is Roman Catholic propaganda. The Pope as well as the entire Curia are very well aware of the Orthodox views on the role of the Papacy in a reunited church. Most of which is contained in my post. Or better yet, get the book written by a Greek Orthodox theologian called "Orthodoxy In Conversation" I recommend.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

Thankyou for the wonderful post, which I reread.
I know some of the priests who are involved in the yearly talks with the Roman Catholics here in the U.S.

I don't remember where I heard this, so please don't pounce, but I believe what the Pope wanted was some kind of real, let's roll our sleeves up, discussion in Constantinople. Ofcourse the problem, as I see it, in my humble opinion, is that many Orthodox are just not ready. The baggage is still heavy, and the purification of memory has not come to full fruition...yet.The Pope is ready, the RC faithful on the most part have been prepared and are ready, but our time will probably come more slowly.

Anyway, let's not fight each other...let's hope that our respective hierarchs and priests who are involved on both sides, will make some progress.
In order to do so, libraries of books and years of talks will do no good, if the EARNEST help of the Lord Jesus, on BOTH sides, is not invoked.

The Holy Spirit can overcome all obstacles in this complex and sinful world, but only when prayer is deep, heartfelt and plentiful.
So rather than argue, let's remember this intention in our personal prayers.

In the meantime, I will try to be the best diplomat for unity and 'agape' that I can be to both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, dispelling fear, misinformation and mistrust. Our salvation is too precarious and our time to do good on this earth is too short for anything else.

Wishing you every blessing,

In Christ our Lord,
Your Orthodox Sister in Christ,
Alice

Fr. Thomas:

You might be interested in the suggestions from Fr. J. Michael Miller, C.S.B., in his book "The Shepherd and the Rock" (Our Sunday Visitor, 1995):

One way of renewing the papacy, which has deep roots in the tradition, would be to disentangle the various �primacies� that have coalesced in the ministry of Peter�s successor: diocesan (bishop of Rome), regional (primate of Italy), patriarchal (patriarch of the West), and papal (pastor of the universal Church). The historical form of ecclesial unity is always embodied in local churches, whether of the Western rite or the many Eastern rites. Service to the Church's unity of faith and communion throughout the world belongs to the pope in virtue of his universal primacy. In addition, however, he has a similar responsibility to the Latin rite as patriarch of the West. The pope's jurisdictional primacy over the whole Church should be more clearly differentiated from his patriarchal authority over the Latin church.

Throughout the first millennium, the pope exercised his primatial prerogatives in the Western patriarchate by consecrating metropolitans, granting the pallium to archbishops, and confirming lower episcopal nominations and ordinations. These functions, however, were not confused with the exercise of his universal primacy as the successor of Peter. Later, when the churches of the East separated from the Petrine see, Rome's patriarchal primacy was mingled with that of its apostolic charge to the whole Church. Since Rome was left as the only patriarchal see in the West, the popes no longer discriminated between their rights and duties as patriarch and those as supreme pastor. In doctrine and practice, the two powers were merged. The bishops of Rome routinely invoked their fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) for all interventions in other churches. Because of these historical factors, many of the functions which the pope currently discharges may well belong to his patriarchal primacy, even though they are commonly attributed to his Petrine ministry.

It is an intriguing proposal. God bless.