www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Should unity realistically return to first millenium standard?

Let's face it. There have been innovations not just from the Westerns, but also the Easterns and Orientals (as I've sometimes asserted, innovations are not necessarily heterdox). We keep insisting the Westerns return to the standards of the first millenium for the sake of unity. What about us non-Latins? Should we hold ourselves to the same standard? Why or why not?

Blessings,
Marduk

The standard of the first millennium does not apply to everything, only to ecclesiology. And the ecclesiology of the first millennium would require each Church to recognize the legitimate theological developments and doctrinal expressions of the others.

Dear brother Stuart,

There are a few innovations from the Easterns and Orientals on this point:
1) The multiplication of patriarchates in EO'xy. According to the first millenium standard, only an Ecumenical Council has the prerogative to establish Patriarchates. Yet, EO Patriarchs accomodate to themselves a prerogative that not even the Catholic Pope has dared to exercise!

OO'xy has historically been resistant on the matter, but finally changed in the 20th century in this regard.

2) The Low Petrine view extant in modern EO'xy which does not recognize any level of jurisdiction above the local jurisdiction of a bishop.

Agreed. But this does not seem to be lived out fully in the Orthodox Churches (both Eastern and Oriental).

Blessings,
Marduk

1. The regular erection of patriarchates is not unusual. The Council of Constantinople elevated that city to patriarchal status; the Council of Chalcedon elevated Jerusalem and confirmed the status of Constantinople. Later in the first millennium, the Church of Bulgaria was, at least temporarily, given patriarchal status. Whether every national Church should be a patriarchate is questionable, and the Orthodox themselves recognize that their ecclesiastical organization is anomalous and uncanonical.

2. The so-called "low Petrine" view is pretty much the ecclesiology of the first millennium. Even the Bishop of Rome did not have jurisdiction over more than the suburbicanian dioceses of Italy. Both Catholic and Orthodox scholars are agreed on this; see Dvornik, "Byzantium and the Roman Primacy" and Meyendorff, "Imperial Unity", for just two examples.

Pick and choose your scholars. Dvornik presents a very balanced and well-documented presentation of the issue, but he hardly supports the "low Petrine" view that you feel prevailed in the first millennium. I rather like his conclusion on page 167 of my little old volume of the book you mentioned. I suggest you reread it.

I assume you refer to this passage:


Some observations;

First, this is a book first published in 1964, and it shows Dvornik's brilliance as a scholar and his perception as both an historian and an ecumenist. Radical in its day, Dvornik's position has become the explicit policy of the Catholic Church in its pursuit of reconciliation with the Orthodox Church.

Second, Dvornik would be pleased to note just how far both the Latin Church and the Orthodox Church have moved away from the polemicists and controversialists of the post-13th century period. Orthodox ecclesiology today is not at all derived from rejectionism that grew out of the Fourth Crusade, while Catholic ecclesiology has turned away from the exclusionism and triumphalism that characterized it from the Council of Lyons through the First Vatican Council.

Finally, the passage tends to support my perspective rather than yours. The entire book, in fact, was one of the first to point out the nature of the Petrine primacy in the first millennium was not one of jurisdiction, but of authority; and that the Churches of the East never acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome over them. Dvornik was perhaps the first Catholic historian to look at both canons and diplomatic correspondance to demonstrate on the one hand the universality of the Roman primacy; and on the other hand its basis not in the Petrine succession but the principle of accommodation. And Dvornik also pointed out in detail how the Bishops of Rome, even when they held a very elevated view of their own prerogatives, tended to see their primacy in mystical rather than juridical terms; at the very least, they were sensible enough to put unity ahead of their own pride and perquisites, which is why the Church of the First Millennium, if it did not know true unity, at least bore witness to it.

Fr. Meyendorff's book "The Primacy of Peter [books.google.com]" is another text that deals with the issues brought up in this thread. The book is a great read.

That is the very text, Stuart, and I quite agree that Dvornik's position was radical for its day and greatly influenced Catholic thinking, but it is you, not Dvornik, who draws the distinction between jurisdiction and authority. I struggle to see how you can have authority without jurisdiction as one implies the other. While Dvornik's position certainly doesn't extol Hildebrand et al. I still fail to see how it supports your contention that a "low Petrine" view prevailed in the first millennium. While it may be the view of some Orthodox scholars, it is not the view of most Catholic ones.

And speaking of polemics, here’s a rather high view of Primacy coming from the East in the 11th century! Guess it depends on whose Donation you’re reading.

“For when the imperial seat was transferred from Rome hither to our native Queen of Cities, and the senate, and the whole administration, there was also transferred the arch-hieratical primacy. And the Emperors from the very beginning have given the supreme right to the episcopacy of Constantinople, and the Council of Chalcedon emphatically raised the Bishop of Constantinople to the highest position, and placed all the dioceses of the inhabited world under his jurisdiction.”

Anna Comnenus, Alexiade, Book I, xiii

As William Stafford wrote, “Our father who art in heaven can beat your father who art in heaven”.

Dear brother Stuart,

Sorry for being unclear. My point is not that new patriarchates can be established, but that only an ecumenical council can establish new patriarchates, according to the standard of the early Church. That a single Patriarch has the prerogative to establish a new Patriarch is an innovation. The example of Bulgaria is rather inconsequential to the matter. The Bulgarian emperor forced the recognition from Constantinople. However, one of the Canons of Trullo asserts that ecclesiastical actions forced by the secular power are invalid. So that Bulgaria was temporarily a Patriarchate doesn't count because it was an invalid action in the first place.

Yet, the ancient canons assert that Metropolitans and Patriarchs have true jurisdiction over the bishops under them. How is it possible that the early Church had a Low Petrine view of hierarchal ecclesiology?

I don't know if I've explained this here in Byzcath before - if I haven't, please permit me to make the following distinctions.

From my studies, I've identified three basic hierarchical ecclesiologies in the apostolic Churches today:
1) The Low Petrine view. Prominent features of this position are:
- There is no higher level of jurisdiction than that of the bishop's.
- A head bishop is merely a position of honor with purely administrative prerogatives, and no real authority.
- A head bishop's only true jurisdiction is that of his own local see.
- In a synod, the consent of the head bishop is not a necessity. His "vote" is only as good as any other bishop's. As a head bishop's "vote" is only as good as any other bishop's, he can be disregarded in favor of the majority. IOW, if there is disagreement between the head bishop and his brother bishops, the head bishop must concede to the will of the majority.
- The bishops are the successors of the Apostles collectively. Therefore, it can be said that every bishop is a successor of St. Peter.
- Each bishop obtains his divine prerogatives directly from God.

Of the apostolic Churches, this position is most prominent in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the PNCC (Polish National Catholic Church). If one counts the Anglicans as an apostolic Church, they would probably fall in with this group.

2) The High Petrine view
- There is an hierarchy of jurisdiction among the episcopacy.
- Head bishops have true jurisdiction over the bishops within their greater territorial jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is part of the ancient constitution of the Church.
- In a synod, a head bishop holds a special place, and his consent is necessary. But the agreement of the other bishops is also necessary. If there is disagreement between the head bishop and his brother bishops, discussion is necessary until agreement is reached. This is the standard of Apostolic Canon 34/35.
- The bishops are the successors of the Apostles; not all bishops are successors of St. Peter, but all bishops have a certain share in what made St. Peter such a model of leadership.
- Each bishop obtains his divine prerogatives directly from God.

This position is most prominent in Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern and Oriental Catholicism (as well as many Latin Catholics), and the Churches of the East.

3) The Absolutist Petrine view
- There is an hierarchy of jurisdiction among the episcopacy.
- Head bishops have true jurisdiction over the bishops within their greater territorial jurisdiction. This jurisdiction comes from the Pope of Rome.
- In an Ecumenical Council, the head bishop (i.e., the Pope) holds a special place, and his consent is necessary. But the agreement of the other bishops is not as necessary. If there is disagreement between the Pope and his brother bishops, the body must concede to the will of the Pope.
- The bishops are the successors of the Apostles; St. Peter was unique among the Apostles, and he only has one proper successor, the bishop of Rome. The bishop of Rome shares in the unique qualities of St. Peter, which no other bishop possesses.
- Each bishop obtains his divine prereogatives from God through the Pope.

This position is most prominent in Latin Catholicism, though this position seems to have been held by Constantinople (the EP replacing the Pope of Rome) at certain points in the history of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I personally accept, support, and actively promote the High Petrine view. Accordingly, I reject the Low and Absolutist Petrine views, which I believe are both innovations.

Blessings,
Marduk

Actually, there is no evidence the Patriarch of Constantinople objected to the erection of a Bulgarian patriarchate in the 10th century. They didn't mind when it was disestablished, though. If you had raised the issue of the elevation of Moscow to patriarchal status, that might have been more relevant.


But that jurisdiction is not unlimited or universal, has definite geographical boundaries and limitations on the authority of the primate. If any Church had a "high petrine" (in your sense of the word) ecclesiology, it would have been Alexandria, whose patriarch had, from the third century onward, the power to appoint and depose all bishops within the boundaries of the Church of Alexandria and its suffragans (even admitting that geographic isolation tended to make enforcing that power problematic in places like Nubia or Ethiopia). In that sense, the Pope of Alexandria was far more papal than the Pope of Rome down past the time of Innocent III. The first century papacy had direct jurisdiction over only a handful of dioceses, and while it may have attempted to impose its will on Western Churches in Gaul, Hispania, Britannia and Africa, these had more than enough prestige and support to push back, until the complete collapse of the West from the 8th through 10th centuries. One of the great tragedies is the failure of any of the other Great Churches of the West to survive the collapse of the Western Empire and the subsequent barbarian and Muslim invasions--otherwise a far more balanced Western ecclesiology would have emerged.


I would say your characterization is something of a straw man that is actually held by very few people in a totally un-nuanced manner. Like a lot of contemporary observers, you create a dichotomy between jurisdiction and honor. The Church of the first millennium developed in an honor-based society, and was itself founded on a basis of honor (not for nothing did both the Romans and Christians describe the ascent to higher office as the Cursus Honorum).

So, if you look at the canons of the ancient Church, you will find that, yes, there is no higher office than that of bishop (as even Pope Gregory the Great insisted), and yes, a bishops "jurisdiction" (territory where he is sovereign) is limited to his own diocese, except where canons specifically delineate his jurisdiction, something done in only a handful of cases), and yes, the vote of the presiding bishop of a synod is not necessary (just look at all the instances in the first millennium when he did not get it), and yes, the bishops are all successors of the Apostles collectively (as Vatican II asserts), and yes, the authority of the bishop is derived from God by virtue of his ordination (otherwise, what is the point of episcopal ordination? Even in the West, imposition of the Pallium evolved slowly and late, and against significant opposition).

But all that ignores the moral and honorific aspects of primacy in a culture acutely aware of status and precedence. Even if a patriarch did not have direct jurisdiction over anyone outside of his own diocese or metropolitan province, his moral authority was generally such that other bishops would defer to him, unless his actions were considered improper or his teaching in error. A synod would seldom vote down a patriarch unless he had already lost his moral authority to lead. And that's what primacy was--and should be: an exercise in auctoritas, not potestas. I know some people are uncomfortable with charismatic leadership, but hey, if we don't believe in that, why do we invoke the Holy Spirit so often?


Outside of the ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria, just where did you find this hierarchy of jurisdiction in the first millennium?


Hardly worth considering, given that the ultamontanists themselves deny the authority of "Peter's Heir" when he is so unwise as to disagree with them.

Your conclusion that the "low Petrine" view, as you have defined it, is an innovation, is wrong on two counts: first, that it is a caricature of Orthodox ecclesiology; second, that properly understood, the low Petrine view is actually the authentic ecclesiology of the first millennium Church.

Not so difficult if you place yourself in the sitz in Leben of the Roman world, an honor-based society in which "power" (potestas) and authority (auctoritas), while frequently overlapping or intersecting, were two distinct things. Magistrates had "potestas" (whether or not they also had "imperium"), and by virtue of their office they also had varying degrees of "auctoritas", but auctoritas was more often a moral authority attached to persons by virtue of their prestige an reputation (dignitas), personal rectitude and even charisma. A person could wield potestas and yet have little auctoritas, and conversely, a person could have immense auctoritas even if he was, technically, a privatus (private citizen) without any potestas whatsoever.

Consider the Princeps Senatus (First Man of the Senate), a totally informal title awarded by the members of the Senate to the one they considered first among them. The Princeps Senatus was not necessarily the most senior senator, nor was he usually a magistrate (consul, praetor). As such, he had no potestas at all. Yet his auctoritas was huge: he spoke first after the sitting consuls, and before any of the proconsuls; he also spoke last, closing debate before a division. He had no jurisdiction over anything, he had no power to coerce, but his words carried great weight, and could not be easily dismissed. An act which the Princeps Senatus supported had a good chance of being adopted; one he opposed was usually doomed.

Consider now Canon of the Holy Apostles No.34: "Let all the bishops defer to he who is first among them, and do nothing extraordinary without his consent; but let he who is first do nothing unusual without the advice and consent of all, so that unanimity in the Holy Spirit my prevail for the greater glory of the Holy Trinity."

This, too, speaks of auctoritas rather than potestas, as well as of the dynamic tension to be maintained between primacy and conciliarity. Throughout the first millennium, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was exercised not through the "plena potestas" claimed at Vatican I, but through the auctoritas of the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Church of Rome, "which presides in love".

The formal jurisdiction of the Pope was delineated both by canon and custom, and nowhere in the first millennium is the Pope given jurisdiction over any other Church. He has direct jurisdiction only in his province and some outlying dioceses in Italy and Sardinia. Throughout the first millennium, repeated attempts by the Pope to extend jurisdiction over the Churches of Gaul, Britain, Spain and Africa are rebutted by the bishops of those areas; without jurisdiction, there can be no potestas. In the East, where the Church was both larger and more organized than in the West, there is not once instance in which the jurisdiction of the Pope is acknowledged by any patriarch or metropolitan--though all acknowledged his primacy.

Without potestas, the Pope relied on his auctoritas, and acted very much like the Princeps Senatus of the Church. No new teaching could become the doctrine of the entire Church unless he gave his endorsement (which is why the condemnation of Honorius is such a big deal, regardless of what Latin apologists say); no teaching could become doctrine over his objection. All looked to Rome as the ultimate court of appeal, and Rome's rulings in ecclesiastical disputes were usually accepted, even though the Pope had no means of enforcing his decisions.

The transition from auctoritas to potestas begins in the West in the 10th century, as part of the effort to reform the Western Church; it had its roots in Cluniac monasticism, and the reformist Popes who came to the throne in the 11th century had been formed in an environment in which power was used to impose discipline upon a factious Church. Knowing little of the Eastern Churches, knowing little of the previous history of relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople, they were determined to impose the same sort of uniformity and central direction upon the entire Church that first they had imposed upon the monastic houses of Western Europe, then upon the Western Church.

The Second Millennium thus represents no so much continuity as a radical discontinuity in both the self-perception of the Bishops of Rome, and of the methods they employed in the exercise of the Petrine Primacy. Recognizing this discontinuity and its impact upon the unity of the Church is one reason why all sides, Catholic and Orthodox, acknowledge the relationship of the Churches in the first millennium as being normative for all time.

Well, a couple of millennia removed, you rather authoritatively and comfortably place yourself in the sitz in leben of the Roman world, but I would rather yield to the erudite Marduk to respond to your rather lengthy exposition. In brief I would say even today, minus the tools of torture used in former times, ecclesiastical jurisdiction is largely a moral one resting only on the faith and good will of those who believe in its pastoral power to provide guidance. In the meantime, I suggest that you read some of the correspondence between Pope St Gregory I and St Augustine of Canterbury and others to see how the Bishop of Rome exercised the "burden" of his potestas four hundred years before the close of the first millennium. A number of Popes were given to the meddling that you and I both find offensive, but St Gregory the Great was not one of them.

Well, a couple of millennia removed, you rather authoritatively and comfortably place yourself in the sitz in leben of the Roman world, but I would rather yield to the erudite Marduk to respond to your rather lengthy exposition.

That's why we get the big bucks. Nonetheless, you either misread Dvorniks whole book, or simply placed your own gloss on his conclusions. Dvornik would entirely agree with me that the notion of a "jurisdictional" papacy in the first millennium is utterly anachronistic.

They did survive the collapse of the Western Empire and saved civilization, such as it was, in Western Europe. Would that the Grest Churches of the East had stayed on board - a far more Catholic ecclesiology may have emerged.

Give me a break.