www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West compromise on Papal primacy out says Bishop Hilarion

Alex,

Perhaps you could elaborate.

Just what would this "primacy of honor" look like? How would it be exercised? How would Rome be invited into a dispute to resolve it...would it require a majority of Patriarchs requesting this? Only one? Two? And if the pope exercised this so-called "primacy of honor" and rendered a decision that nobody liked, what then?

Truthfully, it sounds like such a primacy would quickly be rendered meaningless, especially in light of the heated nature of certain disputes (i.e., relations between Moscow and Constantinople). If the exercise of Petrine primacy requires the consent of the other hierarchs to be exercised, it is paper thin and basically worthless. Mediation between two parties by a voluntary third party is only as strong as their willingness to compromise and come to some type of agreement. And binding arbitration only has teeth when there is a non-appealable juridical authority behind it. Which shape should his role take in the event of a dispute?

Just curious about your thoughts...

In ICXC,

Gordo

I would think for the "model" one simply needs to look at the Patriarch of Constantinople...

Chris

Chris,

No disrespect to the Patriarch intended, but, in light of the struggle for power with the MP and the Estonian crisis...to quote Dr. Phil...

"And how is that working for you?"

I'm not sure that it is entirely, and I'm not sure that such a model is what was seen in the early church, either. The same could be said of the "Corporate CEO" model that developed in the Roman Vatican as well, which I believe Pope Benedict is trying (to some extent) to remedy.

Gordo

A "primacy of honor" understood to have no practical significance beyond who gets to walk in what position in a procession would be pointless for the Church. If one were to agree (as I certainly do not) that such an "honorific primacy" is all that the Bishop of Rome has, one would then find it impossible to explain the real, active primatial functions which the Bishops of Rome exercised in the early Church.

To show that I know whereof I speak, I take the liberty of mentioning that I happen to be a Mitrophoric Archimandrite. The only real uses of such a position are:

a) to enable ecclesiastical recognition of some sort of special service rendered by the priest who is given this distinction - such moments as the Millennium of the Baptism of Saint Volodymyr are particularly occasions when the Church authority is likely to give these awards, and

b) to provide minor prelates for parish celebrations. In larger dioceses, where the Bishop cannot be everywhere at once, it is useful to be able to send Archimandrite So-and-So to bless this or that, to head an anniversary celebration, or do something similar, not requiring any extraordinary jurisdiction.

Well, the Church is not opposed to recognizing outstanding service, and the Church does not begrudge the function of minor prelates for such occasions. But it would be ecclesiologically impossible to turn an actual Bishop into a minor prelate, or to make the episcopate some sort of award. Nor does the Bishop of Rome need pointless distinctions.

Fr. Serge

The Orthodox would say that seems to work fine. That is the model that I could see the Othodox accepting. There are always going to be power struggles...I think the Ruthenian Church is America is experiencing it currently...who has the power...the bishops or Rome, in regards to the RDL...the struggles make us better...the US RC bishops have been in this power struggle with Rome at least since Vatican II...

Chris

Dear Gordo,

Actually, I don't think I mentioned "Primacy of Honour" at all - I'm talking about how a Primacy of Papal Jurisdiction would work with respect to the Eastern Churches.

And that Primacy of Jurisdiction could be exercised when: a) a crisis develops in a Church or Churches from which there seems to be no escape to the detriment of the said Churches; b) someone from the East who feels unjustly treated by his Patriarch could appeal to Rome; c) An Eastern Patriarch of other Primate invites the Pope Of Rome to settle a matter.

I agree with Fr. Archimandrite above that a simple Primacy of Honour won't work and is not how the bishop of Rome acted out his role in the early Church - we don't need to go far, just Clement for starters.

I don't believe Fr. Archimandrite would agree to having the Pope control the internal jurisdictional business of the Particular Eastern Churches.

The UGCC didn't like it "then," and it doesn't want it now.

Alex

But in your note you said:


So I'm confused...

Dear Gordo,

Well, have I denied papal jurisdiction? Not at all, only presented ONE view on how a reunited Church could see it exercised.

The commemoration of the Pope by all Churches in the diptychs is there to precisely celebrated his Primacy of Honour in a liturgical framework.

Since the Eastern Churches are normally ruled by their own Primates, it is the Primacy of Honour that is celebrated in the first instance, without denying a (reformed) primacy of jurisdiction.

If we left it at a Primacy of Honour ONLY, that would be cause for concern.

Even the Russians know that a "symbolic" Tsar would be useless and have no need of one . . .

Alex

Chris,

Just so you know, I'm not asserting that Catholics have the whole matter figured out or that our mode of church polity is the best, especially vis-a-vis the Eastern Catholic jurisdictions.

But I do not see the idea of the Pope exercising his office vis-a-vis other Patriarchal churches as the EP does today to be an acceptable model either WHEN there is a dispute between hierarchs OR a pressing pastoral need to speak in the name of the whole college of bishops and the Church on a matter pertaining to the integrity of the Church's proclamation.

Gordo

Alex,

I think I grasp what you are saying, and agree so long as we are not somehow fragmenting or reducing the notion of primacy in liturgical commemorations.

To me "Among the first, O Lord..." is an expression of communion through our respective Patriarchs that diminishes neither the Pope of Rome nor the head of the sui juris Church.

And I agree with your point, and there are many who regard the British Monarchy in a similar fashion.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Excellent points, Father Serge. Thank you!

Gordo

Oooh like Chorbishops/Chorepiscopi!

There can be no Primacy of Jurisdiction. No Eastern Orthodox Bishop would accept it.

Any union with Rome under those conditions would create an even worse schism as we have on our hands right now.

www.answers.com/topic/boyarynja-morozova-jpg [answers.com]


Look familiar?

This is what happens when you try to bring change. And this is mostly a result of Patriarch Nikon demanding that people cross themselves with three fingers instead of two. What do you think would happen if the Orthodox Church would try to re-unite with Rome under Primacy of Jurisdiction.

I myself am not an extremist, but I would not be attending any Church in Union with Rome under those conditions.

Subdeacon Borislav,

I'm not so stupid as to try to change your opinion, but I do want to better understand the principle(s) on which you base it. I'm not concerned about tactical or historical cautions, etc., just the level of principle.

For example, forgetting about any sort of jurisdiction, do you see a need on the part of the Universal Church (the Church as Christ willed it) for a "Petrine ministry"?

Do you view the current situation between the Pope of Rome, and the Latin Bishops of the West, as one of jurisdiction, or not? If so (likely), how would the hierarchy be structured and unity maintained without it? (This question could be understood as pleading on my part, but that's not the sense in which I mean it; have you thought about this aspect of the existing Latin Church?)

For what it's worth, and regarding the title of this Topic, I would not expect any eventual reunion between East and West to be based on a 'compromise', as though some political fix was in. But I don't believe the recent Popes, and those working closely with them on this question, would approve of that either. So, in that sense, I regard Bishop Hilarion's statement to be a 'consensus view', rather than controversial. [Let me also say that I am innocent as the new-blown snow with regard to the individual personalities and their perceived agendas, etc.]

Thanks,
Michael

Dear Michael,

I don't see the need for "Patrine ministry" as the Roman Catholic Church sees it. And I do not believe that Christ willed it.

How many times did the Lord have to proclaim that the one among the apostles who wants to be first should be last?

Do you honestly believe that Peter is the ROCK upon the Universal Church stands? This notion to me is just impossible. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Church stands. He is the "alpha and the omega". Through Him and in Him his Holy Body which is the Holy Orthodox Church is in fact infallible. Any decision which effects the very essence of our faith (such as that of the addition of the filouque, or dangerous changes in the Holy Liturgy, or forced clerical celibacy, purgatory, immaculate conception) can not be made by one man without the unanimous support of his BROTHER(not sons) Bishops of the Universal Church. Only together working in the Holy Spirit can they make changes such as the ones I spoke of. This is why such changes haven't been made in the Orthodox Church. This is why it remains the only Pravo Slavnaya - Right Worship Church, and this is why there can not be any Union where one Bishop exercises supremacy over another.

The Holy Apostle Peter was fallible just like the rest of us. The night of Christ's passion proved that much.

Christ would not want excessive power in the hands of one man, and this is abundantly clear if one reads the Gospel carefully.