www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Melkites at Vatican I

Wish I knew how to do those quote boxes, but in any event, I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger that we can demand nothing of the Orthodox other than what was received in the first millennium. The crux of the statement being "what was received in the first millennium". That, precisely, is the question to be answered. What was received in the first millennium? Looking back some 1200 or 1300 years, it seems to be in your agenda to proclaim a rather unexalted view of papal primacy when, in fact, a rather erudite monk of that era chose to express an exalted view. Polemical and agenda-driven or not, they stand as a written record from that time period that lend support to the Roman claims that were made well within that same period. That is history.

Or, in other words, the universal primacy was "received" in the first millenium, but reached a fuller development and understanding in the second.

In much the same way, the belief in the Trinity was received on the day of Pentecost, but wasn't fully developed until some 3 centuries later.

We know certain things about how primacy was conceived in the first millennium. In the first place, it was not "jurisdictional", nor was it understood in "legal" terms at all. Rather, in an honor-based society, the Pope was endowed with a tremendous decree of auctoritas, a Latin term that can best be defined as "authority", "influence" or "pull". Auctoritas was independent of power (potestas), and a man could possess the one but not the other. Under the Republic, for instance, the Princeps Senatus ("First Man" of the Senate) had no imperium (legal jurisdiction) nor potestas, but he had immense auctoritas; he spoke first after the Consuls, always had the last word in any debate. While legislation could be passed without the support of the Princeps Senatus, his opposition made any bill difficult to pass, even if supported by the Consuls.

Under the Principate, Caesar Augustus had only nominal potestas, but his auctoritas was practically unlimited. This is what allowed him to rule like a monarch without any of the trappings of monarchy. His most successful successors ruled in a similar vein until the rise of the "Dominate" under the Severans.

In the first millennium, outside of the Western Church, the Popes made no claims of jurisdiction, and had very little in the way of potestas (let alone the plena potestas claimed by Vatican I). He was, in essence, the Princeps Senatus of the Church, for a variety of reasons--of which the Petrine succession was rather late in forming. His auctoritas was not personal, but grew out of his position as head of the Church of Rome, the First Church "which presides in charity" (an important term--note that Rome does not rule, it presides; and it does so not in power, but in love). Rome was the First Church (despite being rather later than Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch) for several reasons: its position in the ancient seat of the Empire; its wealth and support of other Churches; its many martyrs; and its double apostolic foundation by Peter and Paul.

Through the fifth century, the principle of accommodation (that ecclesiastical organization should follow civil organization) was the most common explanation for Rome's primacy. With the removal of the capital from Rome, and its eventual reestablishment at Constantinople, the Church of Rome sought other explanations for its primacy (especially as Rome became something of a political, economic and theological backwater), and at this point its double apostolic foundation becomes the dominant argument. Paul is gradually pushed into the background, and the argument that Rome is first because the Pope is successor of Peter really only emerges after the 6th century--by which time the collapse of the Western Empire and the breakdown of communications between the eastern and western halves of the Mediterranean world meant the Roman Church was beginning to operate in isolation, without reference to the Eastern Churches at all.

As the Roman Church began to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the Western Empire, acquiring extensive secular lands and interests of its own, it began to replace auctoritas with potestas, and Popes began to think of themselves as possessing not only temporal but spiritual power--it is a change of mindset that has had broad and generally unfortunate ramifications, but perhaps unavoidable given the situation in which the Western Church found itself from the Dark Ages through the Counter-Reformation.

It is clear, though, that the German reformist Popes of the 10th and 11th centuries had a very different conception both of the Church and of the Papacy than the Popes of the first millennium; so great is the difference that it constitutes a discontinuity with the past--the Papacy of the Second Millennium is a different beast than that which went before.

As the Petrine Primacy is a ministry of service to the Church, the way in which it is understood and exercised can and must change in order to serve the needs of the Church. The Papacy exists to serve the Church, not vice versa. In the third millennium, the paradigm that emerged in the second is no longer a source of Christian unity but disunity; and it is therefore necessary, as Pope John Paul II said, to rethink the whole issue and find a new modality of primacy that will bring about the unity of all Christians--even if it means jettisoning a number of beliefs that have acquired the patina of "dogma".

Pope Gregory I (590 - 609) was no German reformist pope of the 10th and 11th century. He wrote in a letter to Bishop John of Syracusa, "Whatever one may say about the See of Constantinople, can anyone doubt that it is submissive to the Apostolic See? This has always been recognized by the very pious Emperor by our brother, the bishop of that city". This sounds like universal, jurisdictional (potestas) primacy to me, and he exercises it with the utmost love and solicitude for the Church that he serves.

It is the very theory of accommodation,by the way, that I feel the Petrine statements of St Maximos in his letter to Peter undercut, and which you fail to address fully. Perhaps there was some element of accommodation to the formation of the tetrarchy in the first three centuries of the church's growth. However,it was Constantinople's push to insert herself into that tetrachy at Chalcedon that was not kindly received, but finally accommodated.

Yet even Pope Gregory, regardless of his personal opinion, never pushed the matter: unity was more important than prerogatives, and thus he never issued commands to any of the Patriarchs, did not insist on their submission, and when was addressed by one of them "universal pontiff", replied that he considered the other Patriarchs his brothers in dignity, his fathers in faith. His preferred title was Servus Servorum Dei, and if all Popes took that seriously, there would not be the present divisions that we endure.

Utroque,

This subject is discussed extensively in Father John Meyendorff's "Imperial Unity and Christian Division", from more or less the same perspective as Stuart but with of course more detail since Father John was writing a book instead of posting to an internet forum.

Of course, Father John editorializes a bit, but nevertheless he controls it, makes it clear, and remains fairly neutral until the end. The book is eminiently analytical and I don't think one can do better unless one can review the primary sources (in their original languages and with a mind for the sort of context Stuart talked about).

[no I'm not going to summarize the book. Buy the book!! ]



My advice to those who are wondering what to think about all this: don't worry about it. How primacy among bishops is or isn't exercised is ultimately of little practical effect on the laity (unless it's abused).

You have what you have in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, and leave it at that. Many (not all) Catholic apologists of various sorts interpret that to be one thing. I'm not at all convinced that the same interpretation exists in the Vatican, based on what I've seen from the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. And a few of the studies of Primacy (which Stuart has cited) and some of the papers presented at said dialogue reveal Papal Primacy to be a very complex issue that can easily be misinterpreted out side of its historical context.

For my part, I of course agree with our 1995 Synodal statement.

Stuart -- What do you make of the Quartodeciman Controversy? In that case, it sure seemed that Pope Victor thought he had the power to excommunicate all of Asia. How does that event fit into your auctoritas/podestas distinction?

Thanks.

I have and I've read Father Meyendorff's book and disagree with his and Stuart's perspective. It seems it's always a "yes, but..." if you know what I mean. While the laity may not feel the impact of this issue in their daily lives, this issue keeps the churches divided and has a huge impact on our lives in the long run. Moreover, an open and frank discussion is well within the parameters of this forum and need not puzzle or confuse anyone.

Yes, Stuart, Pope Gregory, as his name suggests, was eminently pastoral, but I think in the passage that I quoted from his letter he was expressing more than his personal opinion. Rather he was expressing an understanding of his and his predecessors' role that was well understood by the Emperor and bishop. I agree that Gregory the Great is a model to be looked to for a future union.

The Quartodeciman controversy seems to have involved Eastern congregations within the city of Rome, not the Eastern Churches themselves. The issue of the fermentum, that features prominently in the polemics of Pope Victor could not have been sent from Rome to Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, etc.--but it could have been sent around to the churches in Rome itself. So it's not clear that Victor was trying to compel the Eastern Churches to comply with Roman usage, only to have uniformity within his diocese.

That said, St. Irenaeus disagreed with Pope Victor, and urged him not to press the matter of usage to the point of disunity. Pope Victor had the courage and wisdom to die before matters came to a head.

In a similar vein, St. Cyprian of Carthage denied the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome when Pope Cornelius claimed the right to absolve the lapsed and order their readmission to communion, contrary to the rulings of a synod held in Carthage in 251. Cyprian stressed the point that all bishops are equally vicars of Christ, and as the power of the keys was handed to all the Apostles equally through Peter, so the episcopal charism fell equally upon all the successors of all the Apostles.

In other words, a lot of early Popes got too big for their britches and were slapped down for it. Leo the Great, for instance, wanted the Tomos to Flavian read into the acts of the Council of Chalcedon and received as is. This was rejected outright by the Council, which insisted on comparing the content of the Tomos to the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, and then made substantial changes to its language before it met with conciliar approval.

As usual, the Roman Catholic approach is to start with the status quo, and then work backwards to show why this is the best of all possible primacies in this, the best of all possible Churches. Historical-critical analysis has no room for that kind of cherry-picking, special pleading and anachronism, but looks at the full life of the Church and the development of doctrine over time.

You might also note that Pope Gregory's statement is not in line with the present ecumenical policy of the Catholic Church, which does not seek the submission or subordination of one Church to another, but looks rather to "true communion in the Holy Spirit".

Dear brother Stuart,


I've yet to see an Ecumenical Council give such honorifics to any other bishop.

If the Emperor was defending the Faith, then they meant it, and it was actually the case - no doubt about it. If the Emperor was preaching error, then they were insufferable suck-ups.

I have not read Dvornik's work, but from the critiques I've read, I am certain that he admitted to the fact I mentioned regarding the Council of 861 A.D. That in itself refutes your claim that the Pope made a unilateral intervention into the affairs of Constantinople.

No. What I'm saying is that if there is fearmongering about the extent to which the Pope could take a monarchical authority (not that I support that), then such fear is multiplied by as many bishops who claim utter independence. In other words, any autocephalic bishop can do as he feels in his own jurisdiction without any limits.

Don't worry, I'm well aware of the history of my Church. Yes, we all know that Pope St. Cyril did not himself feel he had the authority to try the matter of Nestorius before first presenting it to Rome for her judgment.

Blessings,
Marduk

It sickens me when someone accuses any of the great saints with mere polemic self-interest when defending the Faith.


You still haven't answered one of my earlier questions: what is the qualitative difference between Pope St. Martin and Pope St. Nicholas in their relations with the Eastern Church?

Fine don't call it infallibility. Let's call it a confidence in the God-ordained orthodoxy of the Church of Rome.

And don't call it universal jurisdiction. Let's call it universal solicitude, for that is what it actually is and should be.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

According to Eusebius' account, the matter involved the Churches of Asia, not just local parish churches in Rome. There was actually an exchange of letters between Pope St. Victor and Polycrates, who presided over an Asian Council (convened at the behest of Pope Victor) to discuss the Easter question.

I'm sorry. But I find it absolutely ridiculous that naysayers of the papacy constantly appeal to figures who were doctrinally wrong. Face it, St. Cyprian was wrong, as he was wrong about not accepting Novatian baptism. Ironically, St. Cyprian had no problem appealing to the bishop of Rome to discipline errant bishops in Gaul and Spain. So here we have a case of someone who admitted the primatial authority of Rome when he agreed with him, and falling back on the "all are equal" gambit when he disagreed (and was wrong nevertheless!). I've also met anti-papal apologists who actually appeal to the Arians to demonstrate their point! (Perhaps that argument filtered into anti-papal polemics from the Protestants?).

Finally, I'd like to comment on your rather jaundiced account of the events of Chalcedon:
It was not the text of the letter for which Pope St. Leo demanded agreement, but the Faith contained in them.


Hardly! As the clergy from Constantinople exclaimed during the Session: "It is a few who cry out, not the Council which speaks."

Not at all. No such insistence occurred. The Letter of Pope St. Cyril to John of Antioch was read by acclamation, and the Tome of Pope St. Leo was read afterwards by acclamation, with no other purpose but to let the bishops drink from the honey of Truth that flowed from those documents.

Absolutely no change was made to the Faith that was proposed by Pope St. Leo - period - which is what he desired. No intend to minimize the importance of Pope St. Leo's letter occurred, contrary to your suggestion. In fact, the Definition of Chalcedon contains these words:
"And, for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines, it has rightly added to these the letter of the president of the great and old Rome, the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo."

I suspect you are going by anti-Catholic accounts of the matter. Please do read the Council documents themselves (I think an English version exists on CCEL).

Blessings,
Marduk

I'm off to New York for the day and will not be returning until late this evening. So I will only say that I disagree with just about every word Marduk has written, and still find him to be working backwards to rationalize present doctrine. Myself, I'm more interested in Christian unity than maintaining the perquisites of the Bishop of Rome, and more interested in maintaining the integrity of the Tradition than justifying the doctrines and innovations of the Church of Rome. If Rome wishes to believe certain things, fine. But Rome cannot impose those things on other Churches simply by saying it has the right to do so because it is the Church of Rome.

And I'm off to Portland, Maine. Before I go I'd like to state quite clearly that I, too, am passionate about Christian unity, as I think are most of the contributors to this excellent forum, but that is not the immediate issue of this thread as it now stands. Marduk and I are not "cherry picking" or exhibiting isogesis, but merely maintaining that there is written and historical evidence, both east and west, from the first millennium to support the claims made by the bishops of Rome within that same millennium that they had a jurisdiction over the whole church, and that they view this as a service or ministry to the Church granted by Christ Himself to St Peter whose immediate successors they view themselves to be. I consider this to be a very ancient historical fact, prescinding from any personal belief that I may have. The developed ecclesiological doctrine of this same church has its roots in the first millennium and those roots are deeper than those who would deny those claims altogether as you seem, at times, to do. I think that even you might admit that history is still far from being an exact science, and even historic critical analysis has its limitations, as disputes among historians show. However, I do not think one needs such analysis to make valid observations on what is apparent. I may be a roaming Catholic, but I'm not a "Roman" Catholic. I do not, however, share your apparent contempt for their approach as the Catholic west has produced some very fine ecclesiastical historians who vigorously apply the critical method in saecula saeculorum. Amen.