www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Christianity in ancient Ireland - Catholic or Orthodox?

P.S. Father Mark:

As a mom, I have always felt that, with a mere "primacy of honor," one could not so much as run a Cub Scout troop effectively, let alone a universal Church. The whole concept of a toothless "primacy of honor" makes no blessed sense to me. So I can understand why it didn't make much sense to the early Fathers of the Church.

God bless!

ZT

Thank you, Fr Mark, for the reply. The text from Bede doesn't use "primacy" but "supreme authority." It'd be interesting to see what the original Latin says here.

I'd agree that the further growth of papal authority is problematic and if there ever is to be reunion of our Churches it would need some adjustment. Having said this I think it important to note that it's not just a matter of Rome considering some readjustment. The popular view of "first among equals" as a model of primacy is just as anachronistic to the first millennium Church, IMO. Consider these examples from St Gregory:

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. (Letter to John, Bishop of Syracuse, Book IX, Epistle XII, P.L. lxxvii, 957)

St Gregory writing to Eusebius of Thessalonica, Urbicus of Dyrrachium, Andrew of Nicopolis, John of Corinth, John of Prima Justiniana, John of Crete, John of Larissa and Scodra, and many other bishops about his concern that they might be drawn into a council in Constantinople: Furthermore, it has come to our knowledge that your Fraternity has been convened to Constantinople. And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances, -though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force, nevertheless, before Almighty God I conjure and warn you, that the assent of none of you be obtained by any blandishments, any bribes, any threats whatever; but, having regard to the eternal judgment, acquit ye yourselves salubriously and unanimously in opposition to wrongful aims; and, supported by pastoral constancy and apostolical authority, keep out the robber and the wolf that would rush in, and give no way to him that rages for the tearing of the Church asunder; nor allow, through any cajolery, a synod to be held on this subject, which indeed would not be a legitimate one, nor to be called a synod. We also at the same time admonish you, that if haply nothing should be done with mention of this preposterous name, but a synod be by any chance assembled on another matter, ye be in all respects cautious, circumspect, watchful, and careful, lest anything should therein be decreed against any place or person prejudicially, or unlawfully, or in opposition to the canons. But, if any question arises to be treated with advantage, let the question in hand take such a form that it may not upset any ancient ordinances. Wherefore we once more admonish you before God and His Saints, that you observe all these things with the utmost attention, and with the entire bent of your minds. For if any one, as we do not believe will be the case, should disregard in any part this present writing, let him know that he is segregated from the peace of the blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. (Book IX, Letter LXVIII)

The texts can be found on this page (scroll down to either Epistle XII or LXVIII):

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-13/Npnf2-13-04.htm#P105_1340

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Dave,

You are a primate in your own rite!

Alex

Father Mark, please forgive me! Upon re-reading my original response to you, I realize that it sounds rather offensive, particularly my reference to "airy assertions."

I humbly beg your pardon!

ZT

That might be due to the fact that you do not live in an honor-based society, but rather in a contract-based one. However, the world of the Fathers was one in which honor was paramount, and the term "Primacy of Honor" implied far more than the right to walk last in the processions, or to cut ribbons at the dedication of new cathedrals. Rather, honor conveyed dignitas and auctoritas, which together marked an individual's standing in society. Within the Roman Senate, for example, all senators were equal in rank, but there was a definite order of precedence among them--first would come the Princeps Senatus, who was "primus inter pares"--first among equals; then would come the consulars, the praetorian senators, then the aediles and quaestores, and finally, the "back benchers". There were no written rules dictating any of this, but everyone knew the rules--the "mos maiorum", the way things are.

Now, the role of the Princeps Senatus is particularly interesting, because technically he holds no office, he has no imperium, he is just a "privatus"--a private citizen. But his "primacy of honor" gave him more auctoritas and dignitas than many who had been consuls--at times even more than the sitting consuls themselves. There would be others, also privati, whose own personal auctoritas outweighed the potestas of those who actually held imperium.

So it was in the Church--all bishops are equal in grace and dignity, but there is an order--a taxis--among them. The personal dignitas and auctoritas of certain bishops, held either because of their own unique witness to Christ, or because of the seat that they held, gave them moral authority that others would challenge only with trepidation. Within his own diocese, a bishop had jurisdiction. Outside of it, he had only his auctoritas. Since the Church is not a worldly institution, leadership within it cannot be based on juridical categories, but only on service and communion. Thus, we return once more to Canon of the Holy Apostles No. 34:

Let all the bishops of a province recognize he who is first among them, and do nothing unusual without his permission. But let he who is first among them do nothing extraordinary without the advice and consent of all, so that unanimity in the Holy Spirit may be maintained to the greater glory of the Holy Trinity.

Hi, Stuart:

Very interesting and enlightening. But I'm not sure that's entirely what the early Fathers meant by papal primacy. I think it's clear from many patristic passages -- and from the acts of the popes themselves -- that the pre-schism Church saw the successors of Peter as possessing primacy of jurisdiction -- which would seem to go beyond your definitions of dignitas and auctoritas.

Moreover, the Church is also a family, the Family of God (a Jewish concept, which we inherited from our OT forbears). No matter what sort of society one is in, contract-based or honor-based. families cannot function unless the parents (and especially the Papa ) exercises real jurisdictional authority.

Without authority, you have chaos. That's true on the diocesan level, which is why the individual bishop (the diocesan Papa) wields real juridictional authority over his flock. And it's also true on the global level, the level of the catolica; hence, IMHO, it's absolutely necessary to have an "authoritative" Papa at the head of the worldwide Family of God. (There are over a billion of us, y'know. That's a pretty big "family," with a pretty huge potential for chaos. :p )

Blessings!

ZT, resisting the urge to say, "Contract-based, shmontract-based! I'm just a mom, already!"

StuartK, I'm continually confused: are you an Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox in communion with Rome, as many of y'all like to call it) or are you Eastern Orthodox (out of communion with Rome)?

Zoe, isn't "chaos" a Greek word? Haha.

ChristTeen287

Stuart quoting a canon:

An interesting quote. However, it is referring to "the bishops of a province" and an application beyond that is forced.

It is, of course, good for the pope to take advice and obtain consent "of all." Yet, at times this is not the best course (or sadly is not followed.) Two examples:

1) The removal of Constantinoplan Patriarch Anthimus (who had Monophysite sympathies) by Pope St Agapetus who then consecrated his successor St Mennas. (Fr John Meyendorff inaccurately states that Anthimus resigned instead of being removed by a pope.)

2) The suppression of our married clergy by Rome in the last century. (This is a wrong that has been nearly righted in the past few years.)

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

***Very interesting and enlightening. But I'm not sure that's entirely what the early Fathers meant by papal primacy. I think it's clear from many patristic passages -- and from the acts of the popes themselves -- that the pre-schism Church saw the successors of Peter as possessing primacy of jurisdiction -- which would seem to go beyond your definitions of dignitas and auctoritas.***

Only if you read those passages from a Latin apologetic standpoint and do not put them into their proper historical-ecclesiological context. Words change meaning over time, particularly when one translates them from one language to another (and it is an interesting fact that the Latin versions of certain documents differ significantly in meaning from the Greek versions of the same documents). Therefore, one has to look not only at what the Church says, but at what the Church does, so that one can deduce how the Church interpreted its own words. One also cannot pull isolated patristic statements and toss them around, the way that Protestant proof-text with Scripture. Just as all of Scripture must be interpreted within the matrix of Holy Tradition, so, too must the Fathers.

***Moreover, the Church is also a family, the Family of God (a Jewish concept, which we inherited from our OT forbears). No matter what sort of society one is in, contract-based or honor-based. families cannot function unless the parents (and especially the Papa ) exercises real jurisdictional authority.***

The Church is not modeled on any human family, the Church is modeled on the Holy Trinity. Within the Trinity, there is authority, but no subordination or submission, only perfect communion in which each knows the other has He knows himself, and in which each defers to the other according to His hypostatic identity--the Father as Father, the Son as Son, and the Spirit as Spirit. Ecclesiology is thus wrapped up in theology.

***Without authority, you have chaos.***

Primacy comes from authority, but authority is not the plena potestas of the Dictatus Papae of Gregory VII or Pastor Aeternus. The Church is not about power, at any level--it is about communion, it is about service, and it is about love.

***That's true on the diocesan level, which is why the individual bishop (the diocesan Papa) wields real juridictional authority over his flock.***

This is true because the Bishop is the minister of the Eucharist, and unity with him ensures real unity with Christ through the Chalice. However, conciliarity applies at all levels of the Church, even the diocesan. It is a foolish bishop indeed, who ignores the voice of his people, or who acts in an arbitrary and dictatorian manner (and haven't we discovered that with a vengence this year?). Chrysostom never dictated to his flock, he exhorted and encouraged them, like a loving father. He saw their failings as his failings, and his ministry as one of teaching and setting the example for all.

***And it's also true on the global level, the level of the catolica; hence, IMHO, it's absolutely necessary to have an "authoritative" Papa at the head of the worldwide Family of God. (There are over a billion of us, y'know. That's a pretty big "family," with a pretty huge potential for chaos. :p )***

That does not follow at all, and if you examine it, you find it to be not only inconsistent with the role of the bishop as head of the local Church, but with the patristic understanding of the Church as a communion, with the patristic understanding of communion as mutual knowledge and sharing, and with the notion of the Bishop of Rome being within, and not above the episcopacy. In fact, the entire notion of a universal primacy of jurisdiction is itself a product of the Gregorian Revolution of the 11th century, which in turn modeled itself on Cluniac monasticism. Just as every daughter monastery was under the direct rule of the mother house (something antithetical, by the way, to the rule of St. Benedict, who saw each monastery as autonomous and self-governing), so the reformers (better styled revolutionaries) saw the entire Church as a huge monastery, in which the Pope was the abbot of the mother house, and the bishops merely the abbots of subordinate daughter houses. This was certainly an effective way of reforming the administration and morals of the Latin Church, but it has no basis in patristic ecclesiology, and it showed absolutely no respect for the Tradition of the Eastern Churches. Repeated Latin demands for "submission", increasingly strident over the centuries, did little for the unity of the Church (it eventually led to the shattering of Western Christendom itself), and therefore one would have to say it was not an effective manifestation of the Petrine Ministry.

Nice try, Dave, but it is recognized by almost everyone that Canon 34 has a universal applicability, and in the end, Canon 34 will be the basis for reconciliation of the Church.

***It is, of course, good for the pope to take advice and obtain consent "of all." Yet, at times this is not the best course (or sadly is not followed.) Two examples:

1) The removal of Constantinoplan Patriarch Anthimus (who had Monophysite sympathies) by Pope St Agapetus who then consecrated his successor St Mennas. (Fr John Meyendorff inaccurately states that Anthimus resigned instead of being removed by a pope.)***

Anthimius did indeed resign, because the Pope's writ did not carry to Constantinople. In other words, just because the Pope said Anthimius was out did not automatically make him out. On the other hand, the action of the Pope in severing communion with Anthimius undermined his position vis-a-vis the Synod and the Emperor, which made his remaining in office impossible. So it wasn't the jurisdictional potestas of the Pope that was effective, it was his moral auctoritas as head of the Church with Priority.

***2) The suppression of our married clergy by Rome in the last century. (This is a wrong that has been nearly righted in the past few years.)***

So you are saying that this abuse of papal authority is a reason why we should not look to Canon 34 as an example of the proper form of primacy for the Church?

Stuart wrote:

To begin with, Pope St Agapetus was visiting Constantinople when he deposed Patriarch Anthimus. The Encyclopedia Brittanica notes:

Here is some historical background:

Letter of St Agapetus to Peter, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, reproving him for his laxity and for having accepted communion with Anthimus: We found the see of Constantinople usurped, contrary to all the canons, by Anthimus, Bishop of Trebizond. Our desire was to lead his soul back not only with regard to this point, but, what is more important, regarding the confession of the True Faith; but, attaching himself to the error of Eutyches, he despised the Truth. Wherefore, after having, according to apostolic charity, awaited his repentance of this belief, we decreed that he be deprived of the name of Catholic and of priest, until such time as he fully receive the doctrine of the Fathers who maintain the Faith and discipline of religion. You must reject likewise the others whom the Apostolic See has condemned. (Mansi 8: 922.)

The sentence of a council held at Constantinople in 536 against Anthimus: ...he promised to do whatever the pontiff of the great apostolic see would decide, and wrote to the most holy patriarchs that he would follow the Apostolic See in every respect. But our great God and Savior Jesus Christ did not allow such things to go on; to this royal city Agapetus, the most blessed pope of holy and blessed memory was sent, who... deposed him from a see which did not belong to him... we consider him an altogether useless and rotten member, to be cut off from the body of God's holy churches... foreign to every sacred dignity and authority, in accordance with the sentence of the most blessed pope himself... (Mansi 8: 963-6). Patriarch Mennas in his own sentence against Anthimus said: Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic... as Your Love is aware, we follow and obey the apostolic throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns. (Mansi 8: 968-70)

I'm willing to concede that Canon 34 has principles which can apply to the papacy and its relationship with the rest of the episcopate. Certainly popes have made wrong decisions (the suppression of our married priesthood is an example). But there was another relationship which clearly existed in the first millennium Church between the see of Peter and other Churches which the situation of Pope St Agapetus and Patriarch Anthimus gives eloquent testimony. Placing this in its historical context helps. This is just a few years after the Formula of Hormisdas was signed in the East. In fact, St Agapetus had received a statement of faith from Justinian which began with the Formula.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com