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

Father Thomas,

From a Tradition that does not normally have a conception of primacy among Patriarchs, please permit the following comments:

From my study of Church history, every Church Father I have read gave Rome a primacy (how one interprets that primacy is not the issue here, I think) because the Church there was sown with the blood of the two greatest Apostles, Sts. Peter and Paul. This is an interesting concept you have given. I find it interesting because though the Church of Rome can at least find an historic and theological basis for its primacy, the same cannot be said of Constantinople. The Fourth Ecumenical Council explicitly gave Constantinople its laurels ONLY because it became the new capitol of the Empire. How, then, can this reasoning be used AGAINST the Church of Rome, when it is the the same case with the Church of Constantinople?

Do the Eastern Orthodox really believe that the ecclesiastical status of a particular See is dependent on political expediency? This is too hard for me to believe. Can you please clarify this issue for me?

Personally, I appreciate the fact that Rome tried to defend the place of Alexandria in the hierarchy of Sees.

Marduk

Well, if you missed your own parallelism, then permit me to point it out to you. The entire reason that Constatinople was extended this honor (after Rome) was that it was the new capital, hence "new Rome." How did they come up with the idea of extending this honor to Constantinople? Because it had already been firmly established in Rome. Constantinople wanted the honor, because they were the new capital, and they wanted it for the same reasons Rome had it, and they received it for the same reasons Rome had it.

And by the way, Constantinople does claim apostolicity, under St. Andrew. No one denies the primacy of Rome in the undivided church, but to place this primacy purely under apostolic or "biblical" grounds is to rewrite history.

Priest Thomas

Here is the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which extends these rights ("equal privleges") to Constantinople:

"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."

...and the epitome is given in the Eerdman's edition: "The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honour as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople."

Well, I'm not sure what political expediency you're speaking of (as if there is some sinister motive in extending rights to Constantinople), but given the geographical basis for the organization of the Church, primacy for that church was always extended to the national or regional synod based on the capital. Hence, our most recent example is the Orthodox Church in America, an autocepalous church, which moved her primate's seat from New York to Washington, because it is the captital, when it became autocephalous, or soon afterwards.

The historical realities of traditionally Orthodox lands, today, of course, do not necessarily follow this principle, hence Constantinople would have moved long ago. But because it it relatively ancient, among the five ancient patriarchates, it stays.

Priest Thomas

Father Thomas,

The privileges that the Fathers granted to old Rome are not the same thing as the primacy that Christ bestowed on Peter--and Peter passed on to Linus, and Linus to Cletus, and Cletus to Clement . . . . to John Paul II.

LatinTrad

Interestingly, Pope Leo objected and apparently rejected the 28th Canon of Chalcedon. Eerdman's book notes that his rejection was "absolute and unequivical." He wrote to the Empress, "As the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the Holy Apostle Peter."

Everyone ignored his decree (even Pope Leo admitted as much a year later), and the canon stays in force to this day.

PT

Slava Isusu Christu!

LT,

I'd like to see you explore this a little further. What exactly are differences between the "privileges granted by the Fathers" and the Petrine primacy?

In Christ,
mikey.

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas!

I think that a reunited Church, East and West, would do well to indeed return to the model of unity that existed in pre-schism times.

The Bishop of Rome, later called "Pope" following the model established by the Pope of Alexandria, exercised a primacy of honour at Ecumenical Councils, and in times of crisis in the Church.

Otherwise, he could only involve himself in the affairs of other Churches in communion with him if they requested his assistance or advice.

The primatial See of Rome was declared on the basis of Rome's position within the Empire at the time in the first instance, as the Council declared.

No mention is made at all of Rome's Apostolic origins from Sts Peter and Paul as a reason for Rome's primacy.

And that, as we know, is because St Peter founded other Churches before he founded Rome's, including Antioch, and through his assistant Mark, the Evangelical See of Alexandria. He and the Apostles also founded many, many churches in individual villages and towns.

Early accounts list the Popes of Rome from the "time of Sts. Peter and Paul."

It is, I believe, a later view that St Peter was the first Pope of Rome.

As an Apostle, he had all episcopal powers, but a bishop was someone who was located in a See and could not move from there. As a missionary and preacher, the Apostle Peter was not called to be a bishop in this way.

The fact that he died in Rome, along with St Paul, also increased Rome's dignity in the eyes of the worldwide Church.

As you say, Constantinople was established as the "New Rome" and so shared in the Petrine/Pauline heritage of Elder Rome.

Catholics and Orthodox both consider themselves to be "Romaioi" and inheritors of the Orthodox and Catholic heritage of Christian Rome, whether Elder Rome or New Rome. "Roman" is not foreign to either of us but truly does define the our common religious-cultural identity as members of the Church of Christ.

Sts. Peter and Paul are venerated by us all as truly the Chief Apostles and the core of the Apostolic Foundation of the Church of Christ.

Elder Rome has always been and always will be the "First" See in the universal Church, however we consider what its role "ought" to be.

New Rome will always be the "First" See in the East (and despite the attitude of the "Third Rome" and others).

And then there are the local and regional "Firsts" in our Churches.

St Peter represents the unity of the Church Universal, St Paul the integrity of the Local, Particular Church.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Thank you, Alex, for essentially giving the Orthodox position.

Priest Thomas

Believe me, Reverend Father, when I say that I truly and sincerely bend down in spirit to receive your blessing in love and the highest esteem.

Alex

Thank you, Alex, for essentially giving the Orthodox position.

Priest Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a double thanks Alex!

Are you beginning to realize why God has you where you are?

Only thing that bothers me my friend is - Are you still a memeber of the Blue Army? And if so, why? What does it mean to you?

A private email will be acceptable.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

No, Friend, I am no longer a member of the Blue Army, and haven't been for years.

I came into a fundamental disagreement with them over a matter having to do with a "Ukrainian" issue - they offended a good many Ukies who also left them.

I asked them to understand what the issue was about - but they wouldn't withdraw their statement and so I left.

Today, I wouldn't even consider joining them and RC theologians involved in Orthodox discussions have also criticized the entire Fatima devotion for its determination to "convert" Russia to RCism.

However, I have come across at least one Orthodox priest who accepts Fatima, as do I, and who says that the prophecy was fulfilled in the return to Orthodoxy in Russia - and I agree.

I would follow the attitude toward Fatima that the Russian Byzantine Catholics have.

Ultimately, it was the Blue Army that got me on the road to a deeper appreciation of my Eastern heritage, the icon of Kazan and other articles on Eastern Orthodoxy.

So I still venerate Our Lady of Fatima, but not to pray for the conversion of Russia to Catholicism.

Russia is already "Catholic" - just like you!

I don't know why God has put me where I am - I hope that I can do some good, by His Grace, until the time comes when He will have me move on.

Ultimately, I remain in communion with Rome. I know that the form of my communion is not in keeping with Orthodoxy.

But one day, hopefully, we will be united in One Church.

As you yourself have indicated via quotes, that united Church will have the Pope of Rome as the first bishop.

In that case, I'm already there.

God bless you, Servant of Christ

Alex

As one doing a dissertation on this very topic, let me say that this claim that Rome has no feedback and is putting this about as propaganda is specious nonsense. Based on my review of the relevant literature to date, it seems clear that Rome does have SOME responses to the papal request (first made in 1995 in Ut Unum Sint, let us recall) but these are from individual theologians (eg., Metropolitan John of Pergamon [Zizoulas]) but, as of the end of 2002 (the last date for which I have literature) Rome was on record as saying that it had received NO official Orthodox responses from an Orthodox CHURCH or hierarch or synod.

Dear Adam:

Thank you for your revelation!

Others have posted the same situation before but it fell on deaf ears, I presume.

AmdG

If their was an orthodox/catholic reunion, and the roman church settled for "first among equals"
he is going to be the first, not the Patriarch of Constantinople, and im sure The Holy Patiarch Bartholomew would agree.

In Christ
Daniel