www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Petrine Primacy

Over the many months that I have visited this board there always seems to be perennial discussion of the Papacy - I was musing on that the other day, and the way we often discuss that there is no argument that the Papacy has some type of leadership role - but what that role is - seems to be the discussion.

Now I have to admit - I have not followed the current discussion - I have only peered here and there at postings - and this thread seems to be doing rather well� but let me come from �left field� as I often do and present something which crossed my mind�

The discussion usually centers around the - role - of the Papacy. As I said, no serious person with some education in the subject - doubts that the see of Peter was assigned a �primacy role� - but what IS that role?

May I present that this discussion is - as it were - straw.

Now how do I mean that?

In this way�

I may not be the only one who has, while thinking of these discussions - thought of them in ways that naturally assume that the Pope - is not acting in a universal way - right now. Assuming that he is prevented from doing that by the �split�. That is - as we shall see - a wrong assumption.

If I were assigned some special role (meaning a bit different from the other and not necessarily meaning a better role than the others)� then my fulfillment of that role given to me depends far less on what and how others may have opinion on how and what I should do to fulfill that role - far less - than what I in good conscience understand that role to be as assigned to me by the �boss�.

In real life - anyone appointed to some postion - may have written guidelines for how that position should work - but added to that and inseperable from it is the human factor of the interpretation of that position and its guidlenes - by the person doing the job. How the gidlines are applied is always a result of the person doing the jobs. The guidlines become secondary to the actions and descisions of the person doing the job. And that is why we loving when some people are in the position and hate it when others are. If you were to hire someone for a postion at work - if your critieria simple be "can this man follow the employee handbook to the letter?" than you shall be filling postions with people who are really icompetant to do the job needed. What we look for (in reality) is someone with the smarts to do the job effectivly. We hire people (persons) and not machines.


If I were made CEO of a company - it might be a good thing for me to ask others �what should my role as CEO be? How should I act? What should I do?� - but in the final - I would know that my place is not merely to be what and how others would do and say and decide if they were in my position - but rather - what I myself do and say and decide - in my role.

Also - If I were assigned to be CEO by the boos - and then the boss left for an extended time - and it came to a time when others in the company came to some type of majority decision on how I should act in my role of CEO - that might be beneficial for me to listen - but any listening I did would still be bottom lined by how I myself thought my actions and decisions should be made.

No matter if the whole company (every employee) came to some unanimous decision on how, what, why - I should be doing things and deciding things - - - - the responsibility (meaning that I myself have been assigned respond-ability - which the boss will have me myself answer for) - - - then I know that I myself must do and act according to my own concept of the decisions that I should make and how to make them.

If Jesus assigned a primacy role to Peter�s office (which history attests to) then no one on earth know better what that responsibility is - and what to do about it - than the Peters who have held that office. The individual Popes down through history.

I dare say that we can all imagine what it is like to be a medical doctor - a surgeon - and we can all speculate on the mindset of it and how it would be - but at the same moment there is no one who knows more of what it is like to be a medical surgeon - than a real surgeon. Know one who has not done surgery - can know full well what it is like. There is a metanoia involved�. Which we (short of being elected Pope of Rome) do not have.

Of all the discussions back and forth of what the role of the Pope is or should be (and these discussions are most times very well presented and very sincere) if we really want to define the role of the Papacy - then we should look to the Papacy. And we should look to it as it is now and as it can be known most clearly. What I mean by that is we can well know what recent Popes have done and the further back we go into past history - the less we really know and the more political opinions become. We can trust past records of history far less than recent records which can be verified.

My own memory only goes back to Pope Pius the 10th. And there has been much written on him in Catholic and secular history. His actions and decisions can be verified. And so to all other Popes since Pius the 10th.

If we say that there is really an East / West split (Orthodoxy/Catholicism) which by the way I deny there really is because you cannot split what cannot be split - but if we say for the moment that there is a split - than it is a ridiculous notions that at some point in history (coinciding with the split) that the Pope (Papal) - ceased being a Pope of the entire One church. It is not as if the split came and Jesus said to the Pope (�well - you are now freed from the position I appointed you to.�).

So the Pope - and any priest assigned to that office - has gone right on being Pope and doing the duties of that position. If any one listens and abides by what the Pope comes out with - that is their own choice - but the Pope - has no choice. He MUST act as universal shepherd and within his role of primacy - when Providence calls on him to do so. And we must assume that over the decades of the �split� that the Pope has been called on - on occasion - to act in his universal role.

This means that the role of the Papacy - is right there in front of us - and it is not hidden.

I am not aware of the Papacy of my memory - making demands on the Orthodox church - demands which come from his role as Primacy. In fact and reality - the Papacy of my memory - treats the Orthodox church very well. While it may be argued that he (as Primacy) has the right and ability to say - demand this or that of the Orthodox Church - I am not aware that this type of thing has been done. For example - no Pope in my memory has demanded that anything of Orthodox theology be changed. Nor has Peter replaces Metropolitans and Patriarchs� nor has Peter interfered nor passed judgments on Orthodox Synods and such.

While one might make arguments from a political stand point (social and cultural) no one can deny that the Papacy of my memory - lets the Orthodox Churches operate in an autonomous manner. In sum - the Papacy makes no demands on the Orthodox church in anyway coinciding with Peter�s right and �authority� of Primacy.

This brings to mind that the role of the Papacy - in regards to its own bishophoric and in regards to its universal duties and obligations to the church entire - have never ceased from the moment that primacy was assigned to the first Peter. And in that sense - our arguments and discussions of how Peter should act in his role - are empty.

If Peter was given a Primacy (and we all agree he was) - and that Primacy goes hand in hand and actually stems from being appointed (elected or whatever) to the See of Peter - than that election is the deciding factor (as regards the mind of the church expressed through election) for the role of Peter - and even that election is superceded by the personal mind and conscience of the Pope elected. And this - would be the way Jesus wanted it to be. It was not set up that Peter was appointed or elected by a universal election across all particular churches. It WAS set up that Peter (elected Bishop of Rome - elected by the electoral process particular to the Roman Catholic Church) - is further assigned a universal Papal authority and responsibility.

What is that authority? That responsibility?

Well - it is recorded in history. It is certainly argued about in history far past - but the realities of that history far past - are also clouded to us. And it may be clouded to us in so much as many of us will be divided as to what actually took place. But there is no arguments regarding recent Popes - that can not be verified.

So - while we do the mental exercise of �Well - what should the Pope Do? How should he act? What are his responsibilities? Etc�� �. the Pope who is Peter - just keeps right on doing - what they really are.

This makes the arguments that �we can not unite ourselves to a Pope unless that Pope acts in the way we expect him to� � also - straw. Why? Because that type of hypothetical �acting� remains hypothetical at all times and can never be reality. Why - because reality - already exists!! The hypothetical �The Pope�s Primacy should be in this way�� always remains a thing of imagination. Imagined. Why - because reality already - exists. One can not ignore reality - what does exist (the Pope�s current acting in the role of universal Pontiff) in favor of what does not exist. This may be too simple for some to understand. Let me put it another way�.

If you have a car and that car is running in such and such a manor - if you want the car to run in another way - you must modify and work from the baseline - of the reality of - how it is running right now. You must first know the reality of �how is it running right now� - in order to change the way it is running. If you want to have it run very smooth - you would have it run with 12 cylinders - but you must begin from the reality of �How many cylinders does it run with - now.� It does the repair man no good to rip of a 12 cylinders engine (if that is what it currently has) and install a 12 cylinders engine.

Any changing to an existing thing - must begin with knowing the full condition of the thing to be changed. There is not a repair man in existence who can repair some item of machinery - who can do that job without first knowing the operation and condition of the item to be repaired.

So - it is my opinion - that all discussion about what the Papacly should be and act like in operation - all these opinions which are not based in the full and realistic knowledge of exactly how the universal Primacy is currently (and of recent past) been operating as itself - all the opinions (mine included if I were to give one) are as useless and any plans of a repair man who gets a phone call �Hello - my car is not working properly - goodbye.� and the reapir man draws up his repair plans and instructs his men �Make this type of repair and replace this part etc..� even without going to test what the car is doing!

Imagine being invited over to dinner at someone else�s house - and without knowing what they are preparing for dinner - getting it into you mind to improve the Chicken by telling your servant to go over there and put this spice on the chicken! Imagine the quandary of your servant when he looks for the chicken and only finds it is a steak dinner!

These examples my not be so good� but they do go to the fact that - the See of Rome is now - and always has - acted in his full authority and responsibility of Universal Pontiff. And if WE do not recognize that fact - than it is we - who have the wrong idea of what that role and act - actually is.

Does anyone understand what I am talking about here? This discussion assummes that the Pope is not acting as Universal Pontif (by assuming that we can out line how he should act assummes that he would not be acting as universal Pontiff untill he acted as we agreed he should be acting) - and that assumption misses the fact that he is already - and has been - acting as universal Pontif already. And any discussion which does not take that into account - is a discussion of imagination.

Thanks for allow me to drop these thoughts into the discussion.

-ray

St Epihanius Bsp of Cyprus 315-403 AD speaks of Peter as " who is now first and supreme among the Apostles".
What does he mean by that? Does this indicate more than a primacy of honor?
Stephanos I

It is interesting to note the views of the Orthodox Theologian Alexander Schmemann.
He uses the Trinitarian Paradigm for unity within the Church.
As the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity do not divide the divine nature, each of them living and possessing it entirely, likewise the nature of the Mystical Body of Christ is not divided by the multiplicity of the churches. As there is a certain order among the Divine Persons, so there is a certain order (a hierarchy) among the churches. In this hierarchy there is a first Church (Rome) and a first Bishop (The Pope of Rome) Parenthesis is my commentary.

It is also intersesting to note that this view was posited early by the Eastern Saint Theodore the Studite, who usess the term that there is a "theia protarchia" of the See of Rome.

Stephanos I
Unworthy Monk & Arch sinner

Dear Stephanos,

No one is arguing Rome's right to be "First."

What we are arguing against is Rome's nasty habit of trying to crawl up the ecclesial backside of Eastern Churches in jurisdictional terms.

Alex

Alex
If I were at odds with everyone who rubbed me the wrong way, then I probably be speaking to no single individual on the face of this planet.
We need to get "over" it and to get "on" with it.
Stephanos I

Please explain. Can you give some real world example for me to look at?

Which reminds me - I enjoy your posts. I usually read them all.

-ray

Ray,
Look at my post under East and West, Peter the Rock.
Stephanos I

Yes - I have read it now.

Your consistant patience is more than I can do.



-ray

Continuing the thread I would like to note some comments by Bishop Timothy Ware.
"Orthodoxy does not deny to the Holy and Apostoclic See of Rome a primacy of honor, together with the right (under certain conditions) to hear appeals from all parts of Christendom.
Could this not be the paradigm that is used when communion is restored?

What was the relatioship of the sister Churches of the East with the Protothronos of the See of Rome?

Does not the Blessed Eastern Saint Maximus the Confessor give us an answer?
"The Apostolic See from the Incarnate Word (Divine Authority) and from all the holy synods of all the Churches throughout the world in their sacred canons (Church Law) and definitions has received and possesses, in and for everything, dominion, authority, and power to bind and to loose. With it the Word (Christ), set at the head of heavenly powers, binds and looses in heaven."

Do these imply an understanding of something more than a "primacy of honor" ?

Stephanos I

I hope no one minds me starting this thread back up. I've been following the forum for a while, and found this thread interesting (although I'm sure it's old news to many here). As means of introduction, I'm a Protestant convert to the Catholic Church (Latin rite).

I really enjoyed Father Deacon's analysis. I also think that a true functioning Patriarchical system would be beneficial, and I think it would be ideal for the Bishop of Rome to allow the other Patriarchs to run "their" Churches without interference.

However, here is my problem - Vatican I. If we go with Fr. Deacon's suggestions, I don't see how we can claim Vatican I was a true ecumencial council - it explicitly rejects the idea of just "primacy of honor" and declares that the Pope has jurisdiction over the entire church. If we reject Vatican I, I don't see how we can claim any consistancy in our Church, since we would be rejecting what we consider a legitimate ecumencial council.

I agree with another poster that it would be ideal to have the Pope have some limited jurisdictional authority when things are going downhill under some Patriarch (and we might be able to still endorse Vatican I), but what is to stop a future Pope from just taking over in all areas - he has the jurisdiction to, right?

It may be true that the current Pope and some others would not abuse this authority, but when you have the power, somebody will abuse it down the road.

Admittedly, I don't have any answers, just questions.

As late as I am in reading your particular post...

I agree with you 100% here.

-ray

Dear Rayk,

Sorry, but I've just now seen your reply to my earlier post concerning backsides . . .

You wanted some examples, did you? First of all, remember that as an RC, the Pope is already something that he is not for Eastern Catholics - he is your Patriarch and your immediate ecclesial coordinator/commander for the Particular Latin Church.

Well, in the case of the UGCC, Rome has allowed for the suppression of our tradition of married priests, our right (guaranteed previously) to control our own internal church affairs, appoint our bishops etc., enable us to affirm a Patriarchate in the spirit of the very Vatican II Council that is oft-quoted and the like.

Rome has also gotten mixed up in our own internal affairs on more than one occasion and our church is now, yet once more, the victim of Rome's failed Ost-politik with Moscow.

Ost-politik even got in the way of the beatification of Andrew Sheptytsky - something that the UGCC should have really had the most to say about, even though Rome is the one actually performing the ceremony.

But much can be forgiven!

If Rome acknowledged our Patriarchate - that would, in and of itself go a long way to allowing us to take control of our own internal affairs and would cover a multitude of sins.

So Rome has and does tend to crawl up our ecclesial backside.

I don't know of any more blatant evidence than the above.

Alex

Funny how this thread came alive again huh?

OK.. I hear what you are saying... now what particular church is this? and are we sure it is the Vatican itself doing these things and not some lower monkeys?

If your Patriarch is the most important item on the list - how can that be moved along? Have you written to the Vatican agencies involved? If you (not meaning you personally) believe you are being done wrong - someone has to lay it on the table - all too often bad communication takes place and people blame each other when really each just needs to speak up and follow up in polite ways.

While I am not saying anyone here is... I dislike 'professional victims' (I mean that in the psychological sense). Often I have to force myself to get up and do something!! and most times I find out that it was just silly human nature fouling things up and there were no bad intentions on any side.

I know, you might say to me "better people than I have tried and failed" but I would say to you "So - YOU try."

Let us (I will help you if needed) draft a letter, contact some of your bishops and have them review it (so it is the mind of your particular church) and send that out to the appropriate Vatican office. And get back our response.. And if we get none we go to the next step.

My mother-in-law taught me a rule I often use anywhere. It most applies to the business world but I find it applies almost any where �If you have a complaint - take it to the proper complaint department. If, within 15 minutes you are not satisfied then go to the next level (that persons supervisor). If, within 15 minutes you are not satisfied cease talking with that person and go to the next level. If, within 15 minutes you are not satisfied - ask who the president is and make an appointment.� Believe me - I have moved mountains with this method. You really find out how human nature operates as you rise up the levels and find out that each level is isolated from the lower level and usually has little clue of what is going on. In the business world, you eventually reach a level where the boss thinks �Why am I being bothered with this? Has no one lower taken care of it??� and as he goes out the door to his lunch meeting he shouts to someone �Tell So-andSo to straighten this out and give him what he wants - this should have been taken care of way before this small matter got to me.�

We just have to have the energy to - walk it through.

In the worst case we may find out that all - is really well - and the decisions being made are really the best ones.

I have dealt with many powerful people. My wife says I have more b*ll* than one man should have. (I don't know how she means that!!). I really don't call it b*ll*, I see it as ignoreing false fears that I am not good enough or that I do not know my subject. We might learn more real on the subject as we go.

Shall we begin??

-ray

Alex,

according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO), the only noticable difference between a patriarchate and a major archiepiscopate (besides the easier pronunciation of the former)is the manner of enthronement for each Church's respective Head. The Major Archbishop, upon election and his acceptance, personally petitions the Roman Pontiff for confirmation (Canon 153). The patriarch is enthroned without confirmation, and the Patriarchal Synod merely informs the Roman Pontiff of the election and enthronement. After his enthronement, the patriarch requests ecclesiastical communion with the Roman Pontiff (Canon 76).

It is interesting to note that Canon 152 states:

"What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter."

The exception in common law refers to the requisite papal confirmation. Eastern Church canonist, Victor Pospishil, notes that major archbishops already possess patriarchal authority (without the title of "patriarch")and cannot expect more ecclessiatical authority.

In light of this, even if UGCC is raised to patriarchal status, it would not become evident until the enthronement of a new Head of the UGCC.