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

I have no idea whether there was a formal decree or not. It is a fact, however, that the Holy See considers its prerogative to appoint Eastern Catholic bishops outside of the territories of the Patriarchates--which is to say, the status quo at the end of the 17th century. Just why all patriarchates are territorial except for the Western Patriarchate, which is extraterritorial, has never quite been explained--other than perhaps the lingering notion that only the Roman Church is "universal", and all others are merely "national".

But that, of course, is just an accident of history caused by the Pope claiming, through his Spanish and Portuguese surrogates, jurisdiction over all "missionary territories" in the newly discovered worlds--even if, as was the case in India and parts of Africa, there were already Christian present who had been Christians before Constantine had legitimized Christianity in Rome itself. The manner in which the Latin Church behaved towards those Christians is quite well documented, but--as is the case in India--not only have amends not been made, the Latin Church still treats these indigenous Churches as interlopers in their own lands.

Last I heard, UGCC bishops in the US were appointed by the Patriarch/MajorArchbishop... It's only erecting new eparchies that seems to be restricted.

Actually I reject the artificial divisions that you put forward. It is all a little to neat and tidy for me, and appears to be an attempt to read the modern Western position into the past.

I hold - in line with Tradition - that all bishops are successors of the Apostles, which - as I said before - necessarily includes St. Peter. Moreover, there is no sacrament of primacy, nor does there need to be such a thing, because primacy is inherent to the episcopal office. As far as the three chief sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch) are concerned, they exercise primacy because the ecumenical councils of the Church confirmed their canonical priority. The ecumenical councils also raised two other sees to primatial status (i.e., Constantinople and Jerusalem), which proves that primacy is inherent to episcopacy in general, because if it were not it would be impossible to create new primates within the synodal structure of the hierarchy.

I reject the later Western developments which propose the idea that the Roman see holds primacy within the body of bishops as a divinely revealed dogma because that theory is not a part of the Tradition of the ancient Church, but is instead a construct created by Western Christians during the second millennium in order to try and justify the monarchical form of the papacy as it had evolved after the fall of the Roman empire in the West. That said, one of the things that I find refreshing in the Joint Commissions Document is that it does not anachronistically apply later Western theories about the bishop of Rome being somehow the sole successor of St. Peter to the early Church, but speaks instead of the unity of the episcopate and the succession of all bishops from all the Apostles. In the final analysis all bishops are sacramentally equal, because they all ontologically possess one and the same priesthood, and to say otherwise is to inject divisions within the order of episcopacy. I think - given the fact that the episcopal order is ontologically and sacramentally one - that it is time that the bishop of Rome be placed back within the synod of bishops in the West, as the protos within his patriarchate, not as the lord and master of the other bishops, but as their brother and fellow high priest. In other words, it is time that the West apply canon 34 of the Apostolic Constitutions in full, rather than simply focusing all authority in the protos.

Now as far as the foundations of the Roman primacy are concerned, I tend to agree with the Commission's document which sees Roman primacy as having historical causes with the main cause being the position of the city of Rome within the empire. I hold this position because the later theories of the West - as the Commission's document indicates - only developed with the collapse of the Empire in the West as a new way for the Roman Church to try and justify its priority, but as the document makes clear ". . . In the East, this evolution in the interpretation of the ministry of the bishop of Rome did not occur" (no. 20). The Eastern Orthodox Churches have never accepted the later Western idea that the bishop of Rome is the sole personal successor of Peter; instead, those venerable Churches see Apostolic succession as a succession in the faith of the Apostles, which includes Peter, and which is shared by all bishops. By the way . . . if you read St. Gregory the Great's letter you will discover that he held to a primacy for the three great historic petrine sees (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), and held that they were all equal, i.e., that they were "one see in three places" (see also the Commission's document no. 16). St. Gregory seems to have no sense of superiority for the Roman see, which as Laka pointed out is a true Christian quality, because authority in the Church is not to be equated with power over others, as it is with the Gentiles, but is instead a form of humble service. St. Gregory the Great in his letters also clearly rejects any notion that there can be a "universal" bishop.

Actually the document states quite clearly that the Eastern Churches never accepted the later Western development which focused petrine succession on the bishop of Rome exclusively. So I cannot agree with you on this issue. The patristical tradition, as I understand it, affirms that certain bishops can have primacy within the synodal structure of the episcopate but only because that quality (i.e., primacy) is inherent to all episcopal sees.

That said, I explained my position some time ago in a post here at the Byzantine forum, and my views have not changed substantially on the issue since I made that post several years ago (although I would tweak some aspects of the post I have presented it below as it appeared in the older thread). Here is what I said:


Taken from: Canon Law Question

Dear brother Todd

I ain’t no Latin. I am Oriental.

I ask that you be more specific and state “Eastern Tradition.” Since the East never explicitly repudiated the Western Tradition on the matter, I don’t believe you can claim that position to be unqualified “Tradition.” Further, there is evidence that the East associated the apostolic succession of bishops to specific Apostles (e.g., Eusebius; the Trullan Canon that linked the succession of Constantinople to St. Andrew), so I’m not even sure you can emphatically claim your position to even be “Eastern Tradition.”

Sacraments have nothing to do with it. Primacy among the priesthood of a local see or diocese is inherent (held by the bishop). But there was also a primacy among bishops, as confirmed by Apostolic Canon 34/35, after the model established by Christ among the Apostles. Episcopal primacy is not inherent in the office of each bishop.


Your language belies your position. The Ecum councils indeed confirmed priority, indicating that the exercise of primacy in these Sees was a fact long before Nicea.

No. If episcopal primacy is inherent in the office of bishop, any bishop can elevate himself to primate. What a sad state of affairs the Church would be, IMO, if your view represented the actual constitution of the Church from the beginning.

The primacy of the bishop of Rome was always the Tradition of both East and West, as the Commission affirmed, “since apostolic times.”

Just to be clear, the dogma of papal primacy does not claim that Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter. That he is sole successor is an interpretation by those who hold the Absolutist Petrine view. But that is not the official position of the Catholic Church.


Agreed.


False. Though they are equal I that respect, they are not all equal in their duties in the Church. Head bishops have the unique ministry of keeping order and unity in the Church. It is actually your position that has the imminent danger of injecting divisions within the order of the episcopacy.

From what I’ve seen, it’s always been like that. Granted, it is not so much “synodal” as “collegial,” but to claim that the Pope acts unilaterally in his role as Patriarch or in his role as Pope is an unjustified accusation.

Rather, perhaps it is time for those who hold the Low Petrine view in the East to apply Apostolic Canon 34/35, and stop acting as if the head bishop (of whatever grade) is “just another bishop.” This weakness in the polemic Eastern position is quite evident in its constant complaint, “The Pope must approve everything, therefore he is an absolute monarch.” Yet, the Apostolic Canon explicitly states that the body cannot act without its head. So the complaint betrays an unapostolic mindset.

That was the last of 4 reason given by the Commission. The first one was apostolic foundation.

What do you mean by “later theories”? Do St. Cyprian’s statements in the 3rd century on the primacy of Rome before his disagreement with Rome qualify as a “later theory?” Does St. Irenaeus’ teaching in the 2nd century that the primacy of Rome depends on her apostolic foundation qualify as a “later theory?” The non-Catholic polemic that Sees hold their primacy due to socio-political considerations appears to be later than these, don’t you think?

There’s no doubt about it, since Rome has never claimed that the bishop of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter.

As stated, Rome has never claimed exclusive petrine succession, so that is basically a straw man argument. Besides, the document does not really delve into the issue of “exclusive petrine succession” (probably because it was smart enough to realize Rome has never claimed that). Rather, the discussion focused on the gradual emphasis in the West on St. Peter’s faith and person as the sine qua non of Rome’s apostolic succession.

Well, the ancient Canons disagree, so I certainly can’t agree to this as an Oriental and a Catholic.

Agreed, but there is a fine line between “service” and the “power to discipline,” which, for the good of the Church (i.e., for her service), the Canons permit head bishops to do to those bishops under him if necessary.

That doesn’t make sense in the least. Eucharistic communion is the essential sign of ecclesiological unity. What evinces the unity of a diocese? Eucharistic communion with the bishop. What evinces the unity of a Metropolitan See? Eucharistic communion with the Metropolitan What evinces the unity of a Major Archepiscopal See? Eucharistic communion with the Catholicos or Major Archbishop. What evinces the unity of a Patriarchate? Eucharistic communion with the Patriarch. What evinces the unity of the universal Church? Eucharistic communion with --- ??? no one ??? As I said, that position makes no sense at all, unless one does not view the universal Church as a real entity.

I agree with you here. However, I do think that “jurisdiction” can legitimately be used in terms of service.

The same Lord and Savior who instituted the Eucharist also stated He would set one servant over His household, which would be present when He returned, so I seriously fail to see how the two can be opposed.

Blessings,
Marduk

As in, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you? Or, to be more precise, "I'm from the Oriental Congregation, I'm here to help you?

Papal authority over patriarchs is NOT originally 2nd millenium... it was held in the 600's by an Assyrian theologian, who compared the relationship of Pope of Rome and the Patriarchs to that of Patriarchs and Bishops. This theologian was quoted by Mar Soros as part of why he came into union with Rome.

The Assyrian church has, since that time frame or before, allowed their patriarchs to depose the Assyrian bishops, that implies somewhat more authority than a normal bishop.

It is no different than from 3 young priests, one is assigned as pastor... the position grants authority above that granted by ordination.

I never said that you were a Latin. Nevertheless, your views do appear to favor a Western approach, and in this you are in disagreement with the Oriental Orthodox that I have talked to both on the internet and in person.

Just as your language belies your position. There is nothing in any of the Ecumenical Councils that reveals the concept of a single bishop have "universal" jurisdiction. The confirmation of Alexandria's priority in North Africa by the Holy Fathers at Nicaea I indicates quite clearly the fact that Rome did not have jurisdiction in that region.

It should be clear that I am referring throughout my post to the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, since I kept referencing back to the document under review by the Joint International Commission for Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

Nevertheless, I have no problem with the idea that particular sees have a historical connection to particular individuals, but even in making that type of concession (i.e., to historical connections) I would never accept - as an Eastern Christian in communion with Rome - the idea that the sacrament of orders to episcopacy can be divided up ontologically between different sees with varying degrees of authority, because I believe that doing that is heretical. All bishops are sacramentally equal as successors of all the Apostles, even if one takes into account historical successions that go back to specific individuals. In other words, I reject the idea that there can be "super" or "universal" bishops.

I wouldn't say that.


All polemics aside, in context, I don't recall a complete denial of St. Peter as a head Apostle. More like a denial of his biblical headship as seen through the lens of Roman Catholic dogma. Even still, everyone is entitled to their opinions I suppose. So undoubtedly some Orthodox Christians can be wrong in their assessment of St. Peter.


What I mean to say is that The Apostles were gathered by Christ. They are not equated to the Bishops of our day because Bishops are successors appointed by the Apostle. When you speak of hierarchical structure, you seem to say that the twelve Apostles were Bishops and all Bishops are the twelve Apostles. In Orthodox Theology, Apostle and Bishop are two different titles.

None of the three views you presented correctly articulate the position of the Orthodox Church on St. Peter vis-à-vis the Apostles, Apostolic Succession and the current model of hierarchical structure of the Orthodox Church.

A more accurate title for the view that I hold would be "the Biblical Apostolic Historical view".

This would be true if the episcopal office was about power over others, but it is not. Every synod, whether local, regional, or universal, must have a primate, but that does not mean that the primacy of a particular Church is a revealed dogma. Rome has primacy because it was the most important city in the Christian world, and I accept that idea, but that does not mean that it is a divinely revealed truth that the Church of Rome is protos among (but not over) the other Churches.

The primacy of Rome within the Church developed early in the Church's history, but there is no evidence of this primacy in the New Testament. Nor was there any Roman primacy at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), because there was no Roman Church at that time. I have no problem accepting the fact that Rome's primacy is an early tradition, and I revere it as such, but I am also willing to admit that Roman primacy is not a divinely revealed truth.

You appear befuddle. The Apostolic Canon 34 makes no assertion about primacy being a special sacrament, it merely indicates that within the body of bishops there is always a primate. If primacy is not inherent to the episcopal order it follows that there is no primacy at all, and I refuse to accept that notion.

I do not believe in a "dogma of papal primacy." Rome - along with Alexandria and Antioch - has an historical connection to St. Peter, but that historical connection is not a dogma in connection with any one of those three Churches or even all of them together. I will reject any notion that divides the mystery of episcopacy into parts, because I hold that the episcopal order is one high priesthood which is made manifest in multiple locations through those men who have been consecrated as bishops to oversee the various Churches.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. I do not believe that the position of protos within the synod is a special sacrament, and to assert such a thing causes division within the episcopate. It involves the injection of Gentile notions of power over others, which is contrary to the teaching of Christ.

Just as there is no more eucharist in one Church and less in another, so there is not more bishop in one Church and less in another. Alas, the Western understanding of primacy invariably devolves into supremacy of one bishop and Church over another bishop and Church, and that idea is contrary to the Gospel.

Primacy within synodality is the key to understanding the nature of the episcopal order within the Church.

Since this idea arose in the 7th century it cannot be a divinely revealed truth. It is terrible to think that the Church could have been in dogmatic error for nearly 600 years.