www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Petrine Views

Dear brother Melkite,


Permit me to give a background of my thoughts on the matter. From my studies, I’ve identified three distinct positions in the Church Catholic:

Absolutist Petrine view: There is only one head bishop - the bishop of Rome. All other bishops of whatever grade are merely an extension of papal authority. Even the Ecumenical Council is merely an extension of papal authority. If there is a disagreement between the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) and his brother bishops, the head bishop's will dominates to the exclusion of any other viewpoint. Anyone not agreeing is excommunicated. The head has an overarching importance over the body.

High Petrine view: The constitution of the Church, on its several hierarchical levels, is modeled after the Apostles, who had St. Peter as their head. The head bishop has the same role as St. Peter had among the Apostles. The head bishop has true and proper plenary jurisdiction in his entire patriarchate (or, for the Pope, the entire Church), and has a unique authority among his brother bishops. He is bound by the principle of the unity of the Church, and the divine rights of his brother bishops, to always work with his brother bishops in all matters affecting the Church as a whole. He is also bound by those same principles to not interfere in the proper and ordinary jurisdiction of his brother bishops. If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, there must be constant exchange until agreement is reached, not that he can impose his singular will on all. The head and the body are equally indispensable.

Low Petrine view: Every bishop is a successor of St. Peter. There is often a denial that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles. A head bishop has only a primacy of honor, and no primacy of jurisdiction, and possesses a merely local jurisdiction of his own See/diocese. He has no authority different from any of his brother bishops. At best, he is a spokesman for or representative of his brother bishops. If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, he must always concede to the will of the majority. Those who hold this view sometimes deny that there is even such a thing as a head bishop.

From my studies and experience, I’ve observed the following:

The Absolutist Petrine view is primarily held by most Latins, and a few Oriental Catholics. It is currently an acceptable interpretation of the papal prerogatives in the Catholic Church (unfortunately). This position was a local development in the Latin Church during the high Middle Ages when the Catholic Church was effectively only Latin. It will perhaps take another Ecumenical Council or an ex cathedra decree from the Pope to divest the Catholic Church of that belief. Certain ultra-traditionalist Catholics will likely schism when this happens (God forbid). Many mistake this to be the official position of the Catholic Church.

The High Petrine view is held by many Latins, most Oriental Catholics, most Eastern Catholics, and with the exception of the position of head bishop for the Church universal, by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, PNCC, Assyrian Churches, and many Eastern Orthodox. The High Petrine view was the one proposed by V1 and reinforced by V2. One really has to read the behind-the-scenes goings on at the Council, the actual debates that went on at the Council (not the propaganda outside the Council, or the false exaggerations of men like Dollinger, Kung and others who were not even at the Council) to understand the truly collegial intent of V1. I suspect this is the view held by the Melkite hierarchy, and its concerns are really directed against the Absolutist Petrine view that most Latins wrongly perceive to have been the position of V1. This is the patristic model, as reflected in the practice and canons of the undivided Church of the first millenium.

The Low Petrine view is held primarily by a majority of Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and a few Eastern Catholics. This position was a local development of the Eastern Orthodox Church after the schism. I suspect it gained prominence after Florence, when many considered several of their head bishops to have fallen into heresy. Apologists for this position often second opponents of the Absolutist Petrine view from the High Petrine camp for support against the papacy, but there are fundamental theological and canonical differences between the two positions.

Though most Latins have an Absolutist Petrine view, I really believe they hold this position because they are innocently unaware (i.e., invincibly ignorant) of the Eastern and Oriental Churches. Even those who are aware of our existence often regard our distinctiveness as merely ritual, with no knowledge of our unique spiritualities and theologies. I have debated against the Absolutist Petrine view with many Latins at CAF, and I’ve met only one or two who did not change their mind on the matter after being given the evidence from Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 – but they were ultra-traditionalists who don’t have a good thing to say about Vatican 2 anyway.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

A good presentation, thank you...

james

Wondering if you could elaborate on the position of the Oriental Orthodox Churches on primacy. I'm very interested in the Coptic Church (as we have discussed before) . Do the Copts (and other Oriental Churches) view Alexandria as the universal see? Thanks.

Nelson, to some degree, yes...

The titles of the Alexandrian pope include "Supreme Judge of the Universe" and "13th apostle"...

Further, the OOC defines itself by communion with Alexandria.
Within the Coptic Orthodox, Pope Shenouda III has censured bishops for some rather small "infractions"... in some cases, removing them unilaterally.

As I noted, the prerogatives of the Pope of Alexandria since the third century greatly exceeded those claimed or acknowledged for the Pope of Rome--including the right to appoint and depose bishops within the territory of the patriarchate. Why this should have become the case is disputed, but many historians believe it has to do with the rampant gnosticism of the Alexandrian Church from the second through the third centuries (not for nothing were all those gnostic texts found in Nag Hammadi). More direct oversight was one way that St. Clement and his successors managed to bring the Alexandrines back to orthodoxy.

The difference between Alexandria ca. 300 and Rome ca. 1300 is Alexandria did not pretend it could impose its views on other Churches by virtue of the power claimed by its Patriarch internally.

The High Petrine view is held by many Latins, most Oriental Catholics, most Eastern Catholics, and with the exception of the position of head bishop for the Church universal, by the Oriental Orthodox Churches, PNCC, Assyrian Churches, and many Eastern Orthodox. The High Petrine view was the one proposed
Marduk,

You've put together a very interesting analysis of the different views!

Question:

Can, then, papal authority be exercised in an improper way?

For example, does the Pope exercise his authority legitimately when restricting the rights of the Eastern Churches outside their "canonical territories," such as regulating how Eastern Churches can ordain married men to the priesthood here in the US?

Is this within the realm of "the High Petrine view" or would that model fall under the "Absolutist Petrine view"?

Editing problem with my above post. The entire first block, beginning with "The High Petrine view..." should be a quote from Marduk.

My comments follow after when I address Marduk. I was in a hurry to go to Mother's Day dinner with the family and I didn't notice the problem earlier.

This is not what The Orthodox Church believes. It believes that every bishop has apostolic succession, meaning one of the apostles charged a bishop at one point historically in certain places to succeed them.

No Orthodox Christian would ever say this. That St. Peter was the head of the Apostles is biblical.

If by head bishop you mean primate, you are still incorrect. The primate of a Holy Synod brings administrative order to the Holy Synod. This is not "worldly authority" where one Bishop has power over another (You shall not be as the gentiles who lord their power over another). The mistake here is equating "primacy of honor" with "jurisdictional authority over".

This would be a muddled and incorrect assessment of Orthodox Synodality.


Synodality is not a democracy.


Interesting...


Okay.


I disagree with this assessment. I don't think any Orthodox Christians actually hold the "low petrine" view.


Your use of the term constitution is too vague here. Do you mean Bishops, Presbyters, Diaconate and laity? Do you mean Bishops and priests? The Apostles were just that, apostles. At least, from an Orthodox perspective. First, there were 12 Apostles. Then, there were 70 apostles. There were several subsequent apostles, but the constitution you seem to refer to is in fact just the twelve. The Church received succession from these apostles, which were the Bishops.

Great post Laka!

All the bishops are successors of all the Apostles - which necessarily includes St. Peter - and that means that the petrine authority and succession is common to the whole episcopate.

This idea is clearly set forth in the document under review by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church entitled "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium [chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it]," and here is the pertinent section (no. 20):

". . . the East tended rather to understand each bishop as the successor of all of the apostles, including Peter (cf. Cyprian, De unit. ecc., 4-5; Origen, Comm. in Matt.)."

Dear brother Nelson,

Brothers Amaris and Stuart have given you great responses.

I’ll only add that the Oriental Orthodox are composed of three separate sub-Traditions (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian) that are united by Faith and communion. There were jurisdictional squabbles between the Syrians and the Copts in the 13th century, but there is really no inter-Church intervention among the three Churches.

Within each Church, the Patriarch (and Catholicos for the Armenians) functions like the bishop of Rome for the Catholic Church in almost all respects. Every OOC adds “Supreme” to the title of their Patriarch/Catholicos. This supreme headship in each OO Church, as mentioned, is based not only on the Canons of the early Church, but also has a theological basis derived from the example of the Apostles who had St. Peter as their head.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Stuart,

I’ll agree with you that in the time of Lyons, there was an almost one-sided development. But Florence did not proceed in that manner. Papalism was a relatively short-lived phenomenon for the ecumenical relationship between Easterns and Latins after the Great Schism (with a bit more lengthy for the Orientals, especially for the Maronites). IMO, it is currently the EO (not all) who is more guilty of trying to impose its theological views on the Latins, and has an even much longer track-record than the Latin Church of attempting to impose its local disciplines and practices on the rest of the Church, both West and Orient.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother DTBrown,

I believe it can. I can think of only two examples in the past, though:
(1) Pope St. Victor’s attempt to excommunicate the churches in Asia over the Easter Controversy.
(2) Attempts by Rome to impose some minor liturgical changes onto Oriental Churches in the late Middle Ages (interestingly, since Rome was not fully knowledgeable on the Oriental Traditions, it sometimes tried to impose Eastern Byzantine practices on the Orientals) as conditions for reunion.

There are those who would probably add to the list, and I’d be willing to investigate those instances to see if they truly qualify as Absolutist Petrine exercises of authority.

I don’t believe that situation was an Absolutist Petrine exercise of authority, for one simple reason: Rome was acceding to the will of the majority of bishops in North America - who just happened to be of the Latin Tradition.

From my studies of the situation, it seems Rome itself had tried to accommodate the Easterns as much as possible. For instance, it knew of the fact that married EC priests were still immigrating to the U.S. even after Ea Semper was issued, but did nothing about it. And in 1925, Rome even granted Bishop Takach an explicit dispensation to ordain married priests. Because of that, the Latin bishops increased their complaints, and Rome was forced to issue Cum Data Fuerit in 1929.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Laka Ya Rabb,

You are apparently of the High Petrine view, which is great.

You should spend some time at CAF. There are some there, and even more in the past before the Eastern Forum was changed. There was a general anti-papal bent, so I don't think EO who were of the High Petrine view were much interested in correcting their EO brethren of the Low Petrine view. The enemy of your enemy is your friend, as the saying goes.

What about "hierarchical level" is vague? And it's interesting that though you said earlier that St. Peter is the head of the Apostles, you don't differentiate between St. Peter and the Apostles here. The headship of St. Peter is one of the prerogatives handed down in the apostolic succession. I said earlier that you are apparently of the High Petrine view, but this final comment from you makes me think you are of the Low Petrine view.

Blessings

Dear brother Apotheoun,

I guess you are of the Low Petrine view. The episcopate in general have apostolic authority, but Petrine authority is unique to the head bishops.

The Commission stated why this is so - it is because there is a distinction between succession based on Peter's person and succession based on Peter's teaching/faith. According to the latter, all bishops would share in the Petrine succession, but according to the former, it is really only head bishops who share in that particular succession. This headship is a particular ministry, which is not given to all bishops.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother DTBrown,

You know, I've heard this a lot from Eastern Catholics and a few Oriental Catholics. Can you cite the decree that made such a restriction? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk