www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West First Among Equals

Greetings!

Can someone explain what "First Among Equals" mean?

I have a hard time grasping that concept, which I think is of Eastern orgin.

Please explain in brief and in "LAYMAN'S" term. I've tried reading some materials about it, it still goes over my head.

Thank you.

spdundas

The phase "First Among Equals" is generally used by the East to describe the role of Peter within the Church. As an apostle, Peter is first and holds primacy because of Christ's words: "You are rock (Peter) and upon this rock (Peter) I shall build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). But this primacy is one of honor and authority and not one of power. It is important to make the distinction between power and authority. As a bishop, the pope has no more power than any other bishop since all bishops are equal in power. As the successor of Peter he enjoys more authority than the other bishops of the Church.

The East sees Peter as the elder brother who presides in love. The Latin West tends to develop this in a way that appears to make (but really doesn't) Peter the prime bishop of the Church; reducing all other bishops in the world to mere auxiliaries.

"First Among Equals" can be applied at different levels (although mostly it is reserved for the pope). If you live in a state with lots of Roman Catholics, chances are you will probably have an archdiocese and several dioceses. The archbishop holds no additional power than the other bishops because they are all equally bishops. By virtue of his position of archbishop, however, he commands more authority in the Church.

All bishops are of equal rank. But Peter is the eldest and the first.

Moose,

Thank you for your easy explanation! I understand more clearly now, but not completely because you said:

"As the successor of Peter he enjoys more authority than the other bishops of the Church."

Can you explain more on that? What you mean? I thought you said that the bishops are equal in authority?

What is the difference between authority and power?

Also I was taught that Bishop of Rome and Pope of Universal Church are different things, so why is there a problem in the Orthodox on Papacy? Please explain.

I read the book that Pope John wrote, he was saying that the bishops are equal with him (pope) in power. But of course, you're right, he holds honor and authority, since he's like an elder brother.

Thank you for your kind explanation.

God bless,
spdundas

P.S. On my reply on the other forum, "Silly Questions," don't take it personally, I'm only defensive.

I really hate to use ol' Webster for such definitions but here goes:

Authority: the power or right to command.

Power: the ability to do or act.

Every bishop has the same power as any other bishop. Both Pope John Paul II and the bishop of your local diocese have equal power to celebrate the Sacramental Mysteries and govern their local diocese. Pope John Paul II does not have more power as a bishop than any other bishop. They are of equal rank in that they are both bishops.

Pope John Paul, as successor of Peter, does have more authority than other bishops. Christ gave him an authority that he did not give to the other apostles. This authority makes him the "first among equals". He is first because he is the successor of Peter (Rock) and holds the keys. He is equal because is of the same rank in power than the other apostles.

The writings of Pope John (XXIII?) you refer to are the perfect choice to explain this. [Can you post the title and source, I'd be interested in reading it?] The bishops of the Church are like brothers with Peter being the eldest brother, and therefore first. This is the nature of the current disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Both Catholics and Orthodox acknowledge that the successor of Peter is of equal rank to all other bishops within the Church. It is the nature and extent of the authority of Peter that poses the current problem.

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 08-23-1999).]

Moose,

WOW! Thanks for all your answers and explanations.

I am very sorry, the pope I was referring to was Pope John Paul II, not Pope John, pardon my typo.

The book is called "Crossing the Threshold of Hope."

Now, I didn't read the whole book because the book is high level, with so many words I've never seen in my life! So it kind of became a little too hard to read and went above my head a little. I can read it, but I just gotta have a dictionary with me and look it up at almost every sentence. Ha ha.

Okay now, my point is that the pope was saying that each bishop is a pontiff in his own diocese. And he was saying that both the bishops and the pope enjoy the same equal power in governing their dioceses as bishops. Which was very interesting. I learned a lot.

Now, I totally agree with what you explained above (not agreement as in opinion, but as logic). Okay, now what is the Orthodox Church's problem with papacy? Because what you've explained to me is basically what I've been taught in the Roman Church, and is in no way contradicts to what the Eastern Church see. Or am I mistaken again?

Perhaps it all comes down to language and cultural barrier that caused the drift between Orthodox and Catholic Church on the view of papacy? Perhaps both the Catholic and Orthodox Church view the same way all along? And barriers just stood in the way?

Again, thank you for your clear and precise explanation.

spdundas

spdundas,

Okay. My understanding is that the "problem" that the Orthodox have with the Papacy principally relates to the developments of the Papacy in the early middle ages.

The special "authority" of the Bishop of Rome as the successor to Peter is attested to in the Gospels and the Church Fathers. However, the Bishop of Rome did not always exercise this power in the way that it is exercised today, or, more pointedly, in the way that some of the Popes in the early middle ages tried to exercise it. In fact, in the first millenium of the Church, before the separation, it is quite hard to state unequivocally that the Bishop of Rome held jurisdictional power over each and every See in Christendom, or that his doctrinal pronouncements were taken to be infallible by virtue of his office, for example. Certain cases and examples can, and are, cited by Catholic authors to "prove" tangible papal power and authority during this period, but the fact remains that the way that this was exercised was substantially different than after the separation between East and West occurred. However, it is also clear that among all of the Bishops, the Bishop of Rome enjoyed the single most high honor, prestige, respect and authority.

In any case, the Orthodox don't accept that the exercise of a more "direct" form of jurisdiction by the Papacy is legitimate, since he didn't always operate that way. In other words, the Orthodox approach is that the role of the Pope should, in tangible and concrete terms, be the same as it was before the separation.

While this may sound attractive to some, in fact it has a critical weakness -- namely that, during most of the First Millenium when the Papacy was arguably not exercising this kind of authority, in jurisdictional terms, in the Eastern Sees, the Byzantine Roman Emperor was. It was the Emperor who convened councils; who interfered with their decisions when they were getting bogged down, even providing his own theological formulations; who promulgated and enforced the conciliar decrees; who nudged this or that See to appoint this or that Bishop. In other words, the authority was exercised, as a practical matter, by the Emperor in the service of unity. When the Empire collapsed, this source of unity was severed from the Church, and no one see in the East has been able to serve as the anchor of unity since that time -- something that has resulted in grave and significant disputes and disunity within the Orthodox world -- something that doesn't rise to the level of differences in faith, to be sure, but the kind of disputing that definitely interferes with the message and mission of the Church.

Following the separation, the Roman Church developed an elaborate theology of the Papacy -- something which has evolved over time and which is still in the process of development. The Orthodox did not participate in this development, and they are extremely skeptical about it. They are particularly skeptical of the formulations of Vatican I, which probably represent the high-water-mark of papal power (but which cannot be understood properly unless one takes them in the context of the Italian risorgimento that was taking place at the time, largely at the papacy's temporal expense). Vatican II considerably modified these ideas, and the present Pope has specifically called for further study and dialogue regarding the potential role of the Papacy in a future reunified Church. It remains to be seen what fruit this will bear, but I am cautiously optimistic.

I am cautiously optimistic because while there are a significant number of Orthodox who are still very wedded to the traditional model, there are many Orthodox writers and Bishops, even, who are expressing an openness to try something new. Meyendorff, for example, wrote explicitly that the Orthodox Church needs a "center" in order to be unified and fulfill its mission in the world. Alexander Schmemann wrote in a similar vein, saying that primacy could have a positive role to play in the Orthodox context, provided it is modified to suit the needs of the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Philip (Saliba) of the Antiochian Archdiocese has openly called for the Ecumenical Patriarchate to move away from Istanbul, where it is virtually impossible for it to perform any real function, to another location (perhaps even here in the Americas) from which it could exercise a mission of unity among Orthodox Christians. Bishop Vsevolod of the Ukranian Orthodox Diocese in the USA has written quite a bit about the need for unity, the role that the Pope could play in this, what approaches may be workable for Orthodox, etc. There are many with much goodwill among the Orthodox, and there is much goo grey matter being given to these issues by both Catholics and Orthodox these days -- so I am cautiously optimistic.

The real issue here is what is more important: historical models of church governance (which is what the "traditionalists" would say), or the contemporary needs of the Church in fulfilling its mission in the present day (which is what many of the above Orthodox writers and Bishops would say). If we were to stick to the historical models strictly, we would have the Orthodox model BUT we would need also an world-wide emperor capable of preserving unity amongst the various sees, and making sure that disputes don't become divisive -- that is the full historical model -- the Orthodox don't have it in full, they only have a part of it since there is no more Emperor. It therefore seems to me to be much more fruitful for Catholics and Orthodox together to try, with all humility and love, to discern what the model of the Church should be in order to fulfill its mission in the world under the current circumstances. This is tentatively beginning to occur, and we should all pray for it to bear fruit and be successful ultimately in healing this wound in the Body of Christ.

Orientale

The following news report is interesting in light of the discussion here:

CASTELGANDOLFO, AUG 22 (ZENIT)- "The Pope's role is to serve the Church and humanity," John Paul II said to the pilgrims who congregated at noon today in the courtyard of Castelgandolfo, the papal summer residence. His words echoed those of Christ's in today's liturgy: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church." After reminding the faithful that Jesus spoke these words at Peter's confession: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," which are "the heart of Christianity itself," the Holy Father said that the role of service explains the definition that from earliest times has described the Bishop of Rome: "Servant of the servants of God."

In light of this idea of the Church's "power," the Holy Father spoke about today's feast -- the Queenship of Mary. "We must not forget that it is the Christian meaning of royalty, which is profoundly different from earthly ideas of power. It is a royalty of service and love, which passes through the cross, before shining in the Resurrection," the Pontiff concluded.

Orientale,

Your explanations are very interesting. I have always thought that the Church Fathers ruled the Church, more specifically the Pope and not the Emperers.

Yes, I noticed the disunity within the Orthodox Church. I see that the Orthodox desire for more unity.

Now, I am curious. Can you (or anyone) give me an example of how the authority of the pope was used BEFORE the Schism and AFTER the Schism. Also please give me an example of how the pope runs it during the Middle Ages. I would like to visualize the differences so I can compare them, hopefully coming closer to more understanding on the Orthodox's position on papacy.

If you don't know the details on specific history on the excercising the authority, which might take too long to look it up, that's fine. Can you just give me an easy example. You can kind of make something up and apply it to my question.

Thank you.
spdundas

hello spdundas,

It is truly amazing to see so many who dont really know what exactly is the authority in Orthodoxy.

There is so much to say, without alot of time. I will answer your question on giving an example of the popes before and after they left the New Testament Church.

The Latins, who deep down are conscious of the lie in which they live, have felt of old the necessity to teach that their differences from the Orthodox Church are insignificant. This is but a means of quieting the struggling conscience of their faithful who continually uncover in Orthodox Tradition and life new magnitude and depths which they lack.

They teach, therefore, that our only difference is insubordination, and that the dogmatic differences are only misunderstandings because of incomplete formulations. They fashioned the Unia, in which, without asking for any other immediate change in their faith and life, they accept Easterners if only they submit to the Pope. They believe that this peaceful assault is the best means of paralyzing our every resistance.

The Church of Christ does not hang from the letter of the law. If those ordained did not have the correct faith, their ordination is invalid, and we can speak neither of Apostolic succession nor of priesthood, as is the case with the Latins and those who are with them. Does the Holy Spirit abide in falsehood? Where heresy is ?

Here is what the Great Basil says, writing to Nikopolitas: "I will never number with the true priests of Christ him who was ordained and received the oversight of a flock from the profane hands of heretics, unto the overthrow of the Orthodox Faith."

What value, then, does a merely ritualistic Apostolic succession have from whence the Holy Spirit has departed?

Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) announced that "all worldly things must belong to the Church and its pope."

Not surprisingly, Pope Boniface VIII proclaimed, in his Bull, Unam Sanctam (1302): "It is necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The concept of universal authority being vested in one man was alien to the early Church of Christ and to the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The dogma of Papal infallibility, which was not proclaimed util the nineteenth century, was only an extension of this false teaching about universal authority.

Among Romans today, it is a little known fact that as late as the nineteenth century many Roman Catholic bishops still understood the jurisdiction of the Pope in the same way as did the early Church. When Pope Pius IX sought the mantle of infallible supremacy at the First vatican Council in 1870, Bishop Joseph Georg Strossmayer of Diakovar, in Croatia, rose and spoke these words:

I do not find one single chapter , or one little verse [of scripture] in which Jesus Christ gives to Saint Peter the mastery over the Apostles, his fellow-workers.....The Apostle Paul makes no mention of the primacy of Peter in any of his letters directed to the various churches...What has surprised me most, and what moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence of Saint Peter himself!" and "The Councils of the first four centuries, while they recognized the high position which the Bishop of Rome occupied in the Church on account of Rome being the capitol of the Empire, only accorded to him a preeminence of honor, never of power or jurisdiction. In the passage, Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, the Holy Fathers never understood that the Church was built on Peter (super Petrum), but on the rock (super petram) of the Apostle's confession of faith" in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Well, I must go for now. I have to cook dinner for my family. As I said before, there is so much to be said......

God bless!!!

Reader Timothy

The Reader Timothy wrote:

Here is what the Great Basil says, writing to Nikopolitas: "I will never number with the true priests of Christ him who was ordained and received the oversight of a flock from the profane hands of heretics, unto the overthrow of the Orthodox Faith."

It is excellent that you quote Basil because St. Basil made clear that it is only those who hold a different understanding of God who are heretics. See his First Canonical Epistle (Ep. 188, dated 374).


"I do not find one single chapter , or one little verse [of scripture] in which Jesus Christ gives to Saint Peter the mastery over the Apostles, his fellow-workers.....The Apostle Paul makes no mention of the primacy of Peter in any of his letters directed to the various churches...What has surprised me most, and what moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence of Saint Peter himself!"

Matthew 16:18 comes to mind in its proper context as clearly making Peter the elder brother. I won't repeat earlier posts summarizing how Peter settled the dispute at the Council of Jerusalem (see the Acts of the Apostles) or touch on the early history of the Church. I will note that lack of evidence in Paul's epistles is not relevant. Any good Scripture scholar knows that Paul wrote mostly to correct problems within the Church. Issues which were always believed, like Peter's primacy of the Dormition and Assumption of Mary, were not always put in writing.

"Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, the Holy Fathers never understood that the Church was built on Peter (super Petrum), but on the rock (super petram) of the Apostle's confession of faith" in the Divinity of Jesus Christ."

Not quite. Literally, one could translate it as "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church". In Greek the term for rock (petras) has female attributes. The proper name Peter (petros) naturally has a masculine ending. In Aramaic, the same word is used for both. While there is the sense that the Church is built on Peter's confession of faith, it is quite clear that it is Peter who was chosen to make this confession and not one of the other disciples. Jesus gives the keys to all the disciples. But he gives them first to Peter.

[This message has been edited by Moose (edited 08-30-1999).]

Greetings,
The title of Primacy attributed to St. Peter was of honor and respect amongst the rest of the Apostles. Permit me to say what it does not imply: subjugation or being condescending towards the Apostles. Why is it the Roman Catholic mindset to belittle the significance of the rest of the Apostles by creating St. Peter into something he was not such as infallible or supreme? According to Acts 15 , St. Peter did not convene the Council of Jerusalem. James, the brother of the Lord, presided over this council since he was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and further declared in his judgement that the gentiles should not be troubled provided with some exceptions. St. James made the final decision in unity and agreement with all the Apostles. St. Peter did not make the final judgement but however agreed with St. James' verdict. Where is the role of St. Peter if Catholics believe he is number one and runs the show? Unfortunately, there is a very strong myth amongst Catholics that believe St. Peter was a supreme and infallible pontiff and was responsible for all the Churches then. St. Peter was not able to do anything without the communion of the Apostles. His authority was the same authority of all the Apostles granted by Christ. Catholic apologetics are the least futile when the truth of St. Peter is revealed historically as well as spiritually. St. Peter was one of the greatest Saints not the only greatest Saint. Much of Orthodox Christianity is attributed to St. Paul. St Paul had corrected St. Peter as recorded in Galatians 2:11 because Peter erred. Orthodoxy could herald St. Paul over St.Peter and belittle Peter as well but this would be wrong as well as misleading. Orthodoxy does not agree with Rome's mindset which exagerates the historic Christian truth of St. Peter in order to substantiate its claim of supreme jurisdiction and infallibility over the rest of the other Apostolic Sees. This nonsense must cease. The title, "First Amongst Equals", is all that it is- a title of equality. Not of supremacy or infallibility. The Catholic apologetics,the word games and the rhetoric on this meaning of this title ignores its original historic setting during the Apostolic era.
Yours in Christ,
Robert

One more word of thought.
Why do Catholic apologetics waste their time arguing against the teachings of Sola Scriptura when they employ the same tactics? For example, according to St. Matthew 16:19
the keys of the Kingdom were given to St. Peter. The word "key" is understood to mean one who authorizes. The word "key" is not literally shown or given to any other Apostles except St. Peter in the New Testament. Therefore according to Catholic apologetics the keys are ONLY given to St. Peter and this proves Rome's superior position. Furthermore,there is no mention of the word "keys" given to any other Apostle in the New Testament proves Rome's divine claim of supreme jurisdiction. Now for the record I dare challenge this inconsistent truth because all the Apostles were granted the "keys" even though the word "keys" is not made literally manifest to each of the Apostles in the New Testament texts. How is it possible that the New Testament speaks of the authority of the Apostles to bind and loosen on earth and heaven which are the "keys" given by Christ? Catholic apologetics create a false impression that we must submit to Rome because the keys are only with St. Peter according to Mat.16:19. If the word keys is not revealed to others in the literal sense then therefore St. Peter possesses the keys ALONE. Is this not the same tactic Protestantism argues in defense of the Bible ALONE? Rome is to entangled being ALONE with itself which in turn created Protestantism ALONE. In the Latin Rite, BREAD ALONE is used in its service. Rome has done everything ALONE especially by creating its own very ecumenical councils after the Seventh Council. I sincerely believe that Rome is crying out for help. The Orthodox Church will not grant Rome the title of Primacy until she has recanted from doing things ALONE. Let us pray to the Lord. Lord have mercy.
In Christ,
Robert

James presided over the Council in Jerusalem because he was then bishop of Jerusalem (Peter had already left to preach to the Gentiles). The whole issue, however, was resolved by Peter's words: "And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them, �Men and brethren, you know that...God makes no distinction between them [Gentiles] and us...'" (see Acts 15:6-1). It was Peter who spoke and resolved the issue and it is this account that Holy Scripture records. This is a scriptural account of Peter stepping in to resolve a dispute. James repeats the account to give it even more emphasis.

This is where I disagree with some of my Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) brethren. A study of the Church fathers makes clear that they understood and acknowledged the primacy of Peter. It is also clear that primacy was exercised in a much different manner than it is today. Robert was correct in noting that Peter did not make the final judgement but his words indicated the final judgement. In his primacy of love, Peter should be the one to settle disputes within the Church and must be a strong leader yet must always act with the entire Church. This is where the Western model, codified especially in Vatican I, is lacking.

Briefing touching on the keys issue, Robert is also correct in noting that he keys were given to all the disciples. But our Lord was talking specifically to Peter and he holds the keys in a special way that the other apostles do not. One cannot deny the primacy given to Peter in Scripture. Nor can one exaggerate it. But we've discussed this at length on other threads.

When did �authority� become a bad word. I thought authority was a good thing; and the following of authority the greatest test of Faith. Last I heard, �All authority is of God.� If it is not of God, it is not authority.

Catholics believe the Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit, Orthodox seem not to believe this. If I find out on Judgment Day that the Pope WAS NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, I made a mistake, but my intention was to follow the Holy Spirit. But if the Pope IS inspired by the Holy Spirit, have not the Orthodox denied the Holy Spirit? And if the Pope IS NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, have not the Orthodox still denied Him by not giving authority to SOMEONE? Does not AUTHORITY presuppose ONE AUTHORITY?

As a Catholic, I am told that my marriage is a sign of Christ�s relationship to His Bride the Church. Does anyone deny that Christ has AUTHORITY over His Church? Of course not! Yet there are Catholics who insist that the husband has NO authority over his wife; that they are equal partners. So when Joe comes home and tells Mae that the Holy Spirit has inspired him to move the family to Egypt, she throws a hussey-fit and demands a divorce. Or else Joe ignores the prompting of the Spirit in order to please his wife. What kind of a MAN, let alone CHRISTIAN-SENT-TO-EVANGELIZE-THE-WORLD-MAN wants to live this life?! To deny my husband�s authority over me is to silence the Holy Spirit within our marriage. Hopefully, he will lovingly discuss all the decisions he must make and wait for my approval. But HELLOOO!!! Welcome to real life in the fallen world! Men are notorius for NOT knowing how to express their convictions, and wives can be as prideful and ignorant as husbands. So we must trust that the Holy Spirit guides us through the man of the house, and in faith follow the path along which we are led, even when the wife feels like Isaac on the altar with the knife coming down. Otherwise, why are we alive? What does it mean to have FAITH?

Sorry for this mishmash. I am just trying to understand. If I seem a little on edge it is because my return to the Church after my radical-feminist stage was by way of my understanding the necessity of authority within marriage. Without it, I see us doomed to a world of abortion, divorce, and euthanasia. And without Peter, I see any church doomed to a world of apostasy, schism, and excommunication.

[This message has been edited by Wendy (edited 08-31-1999).]

Wendy wrote: "Catholics believe the Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit, Orthodox seem not to believe
this. If I find out on Judgment Day that the Pope WAS NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, I
made a mistake, but my intention was to follow the Holy Spirit. But if the Pope IS
inspired by the Holy Spirit, have not the Orthodox denied the Holy Spirit? And if the
Pope IS NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, have not the Orthodox still denied Him by not
giving authority to SOMEONE? Does not AUTHORITY presuppose ONE AUTHORITY?"

Like Catholics, we Orthodox believe that the "gates of hell shall not prevail", so despite the inherent weakness of our universal governance (ie; the lack of a Byzantine Emperor to prod our bishops) - the Church is governed, and found inviolate, and lived by the faithful Orthodox. The Orthodox Church does not satisfy the requirements of this world for "visibility, power and sound-bites" that they may find in the Catholic Church perhaps. So be it, this is hard to fathom, but God has His reasons why and how His Church will be perceived and treated by this world.
Now to suggest that your "intentions" are good and fulfill your obligation to seek the truth, whereas for the Orthodox to do the same but be found guilty of "denying the Holy Spirit" - seems hubristic to say the least. We believe that Christ himself is the head of the Church, this Church is the Orthodox Church and nothing found in our faith, the faith of the Apostles, has in essence changed since Christ founded His Church. Each Orthodox Bishop is an Apostle, each is an icon of Christ - we have authority in the Church.
In any case, I did like your thoughts on marriage and obedience, but they do not expand analogically to the Church and the Pope for me. If anything, I have found in Orthodoxy even more of an imperative to be obedient (to the Gospels,to what the Church teaches, to Tradition, to my Spiritual Father) than I did before. Nothing in my life as an Orthodox Christian would compel me to seek authority above that which God has given to me.
Please forgive me if I offend.

In Christ,
John