Dear brother Stuart,
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.
The Bulgarian Patriarchate was self-proclaimed in 918(?) and was not recognized by Constantinople until 927(?). This only occurred after decisive military victories by Tsar Simeon over Constantinople and was part of their “peace treaty.” I don’t understand how one can interpret it any other way than that the
secular power had a major hand in the establishment of the Patriarchate in Bulgaria. In any case, I guess we can agree that the notion that a single Patriarch can establish a new Patriarchate is a new development with respect to the patristic standard.
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?
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.
Mention of an unlimited or universal jurisdiction is a straw man (in any case, though universal jurisdiction exists, unlimited jurisdiction is a fantasy). The fact that the early Church recognized a level of jurisdiction above the local is enough to demonstrate that the ecclesiology of the early Church was High Petrine, not Low Petrine. I will explain further in the “High Petrine” section below.
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.
I’ve met more EO who hold this Low Petrine view than the High Petrine view (though the recent Ravenna colloquium was of a definite High Petrine flavor), so it’s not a straw man. The great majority of EO who used to participate at CAF expressed the positions that I have related here. Granted, many of them seemed to be converts from Protestantism, which may have affected their viewpoints.
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).
I understand that jurisdiction is established by law (potestas), but maintained by honor (auctoritas). Does that coincide with your assessment of my position?
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).
On the points with which the High Petrine and Low Petrine views agree, we obviously agree as well. But we don’t agree on two salient points: 1) that there is no higher level of jurisdiction than that of the local bishop; 2) that the vote of the head bishop is not necessary.
That there is no higher level of jurisdiction than that of the local bishop will be amply refuted in the “High Petrine” section below. As far as your appeal to Pope St. Gregory the Great, I don’t think we should get too stuck on the term “office.” I think he was referring to the office of sanctifying, which indeed has no higher locus than the office of bishop. However, Pope St. Gregory obviously believed that not all bishops share the same level of responsibility in the Church, as evinced by his
own actions in relation to his brother bishops. The job of the Church is not all about sanctifying, after all - she also teaches and disciplines, and on these matters, an hierarchy does exist among bishops.
That the vote of the head bishop is not necessary is an innovation according to the most ancient canon laws (see the Canons below in the “High Petrine” section). The principle of the High Petrine position requires that when there is disagreement, there must be discussion – even debate – until agreement is reached. On that principle, with the help of the Holy Spirit, it could be that the head bishop is correct, or the rest of the bishops are correct. The Low Petrine view insists that the majority is always correct (unworkable if one views the history of the Church during the Arian controversy), while the Absolutist Petrine view insists that the head is always correct (unworkable if one views the history of the Church during the Fifth Ecumenical Council). The High Petrine view allows for the possibility that either the head, on the one hand, or the body, on the other, are correct; the High Petrine view does not legalistically demand that only the head will always be correct, or only the body will always be correct; the High Petrine view works on the principle of the agreement of all involved.
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?
There’s where we disagree. You believe that a patriarch does not have “direct jurisdiction” according to
potestas, but only a plenary “moral authority” according to
auctoritas. I will explain more below, and give canonical precedence for the High Petrine position in the “High Petrine” section further down. But it seems to me that – even more basically – we have differing concepts of “jurisdiction.” From our past conversations on the matter, I know you know that I don’t even like the term “jurisdiction,” and that “jurisdiction” is not an apostolic principle, but a later development in the fourth century when the State was married to the Church. I have expressed before that the term “jurisdiction” should be replaced with the term “solicitude,” which is what it actually is. So I understand “jurisdiction” first in terms of the care that a particular hierarch has for a place (whether local, regional, or universal). To me, it is not a matter of control, but a matter of being a loving shepherd. And that’s where we disagree.
But there is apparently another aspect of our disagreement on the definition of “jurisdiction” – namely, the manner in which jurisdiction is exercised. You think that having “jurisdiction” means that a head bishop can do whatever he wills in a local See outside his own in the exact same manner as any local bishop. With that understanding (which is a misunderstanding), then a head bishop can conceivably interfere in the affairs of any local bishop. But that is not how the “jurisdiction” of head bishops is understood and exercised in Churches who hold the High Petrine position (which includes the Catholic Church). I will explain it according to Catholic ecclesiastical language, since it is the most precise for our purposes.
In Catholic Canon Law, there are three specific terms that describe the jurisdictional prerogatives of bishops of whatever grade:
ordinary,
immediate, and
proper. The first two terms refer to the nature of jurisdiction, and the last term refers to its exercise.
Ordinary refers to whether the jurisdiction is
inherent in the office, or comes from some outside source. For example, does a local bishop, a Metropolitan, a Patriarch, or a Pope have the inherent prerogative to teach, or must that be supplied by an outside authority? Does a local bishop, a Metropolitan, a Patriarch, or a Pope have the inherent prerogative to discipline those subject to him, or must that be supplied by an outside authority? Etc., etc. The jurisdiction of every bishop, no matter what grade, is described as “ordinary.”
Immediate refers to the source of the authority – whether from God or from the Church. If the jurisdiction is considered to come directly from God (i.e., as reflected in the Biblical model of the Apostles), then that jurisdiction is called “immediate” Hence – with “jurisdiction” understood as “love and solicitude,”
not “control” – every bishop’s local jurisdiction is described as “immediate,” and the Pope’s universal jurisdiction is also described as “immediate.” (the principle behind these jurisdictions having been inherited from the model of the Apostles, who had St. Peter as their head). The metropolitan and patriarchal levels of jurisdiction came from the Church in the 4th century, and hence are not described as “immediate.”
Proper refers to the exercise of the jurisdiction. This term defines whether a bishop has the prerogative to administer the day-to-day affairs within his jurisdiction. It is important to realize that with respect to a local diocese, Catholic canon law states that
only the local bishop has proper jurisdiction in his local diocese. A Metropolitan does
not have proper jurisdiction in a local diocese outside his own local diocese, a Catholicos does not have proper jurisdiction in any local diocese outside his own, a Patriarch or Major Archbishop does not have proper jurisdiction in any local diocese outside his own, and the Pope does not have proper jurisdiction in any local diocese outside his own. In short, with respect to a local diocese, head bishops don’t have proper jurisdiction in any local diocese outside his own local diocese – iow, head bishops don’t have the canonical authority to administer the day-to-day affairs of any local diocese outside his own local diocese.
However, keep in mind that “proper” defines whether a bishop has the prerogative to administer the day-to-day affairs
within his jurisdiction. So even though a Metropolitan does not have proper jurisdiction in any local diocese outside his own local diocese, he does have proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the
entire Metropolitan See; even though a Patriarch does not have proper jurisdiction in any local diocese outside his own local diocese, or does not have proper jurisdiction in any Metropolitan See outside his own Metropolitan see, he does have proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the
entire Patriarchate; even though the Pope does not have proper jurisdiction in any local diocese outside his own local diocese, or does not have proper jurisdiction in any Metropolitan See outside his own Metropolitan See, or does not have proper jurisdiction in any Patriarchate outside his own Patriarchate, he does have proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the
universal Church.
It is evident that as one moves up the hierarchy, “proper jurisdiction” is exercised with ever
decreasing frequency. For example, every bishop normally administers the day-to-day affairs of his own local Church without interference, and it is rare that there will be some exigency that involves something outside of his local See, but when such a circumstance occurs, the Metropolitan does have the proper authority to intervene; every Metropolitan or archbishop normally administers the affairs of his own Metropolitan See without interference (such explicit administration already being rare in itself), and it is even more rare that there will be some exigency that involves something outside of his own Metropolitan See, but when such a circumstance occurs, the Patriarch does has the proper authority to intervene; etc.
It is this last term (“proper”) that is the cause of the confusion for non-Catholics (and even among Catholics – especially in disagreements between those who hold the Absolutist Petrine view, and those who hold the High Petrine view). The fact is,
many don’t bother to read Canon law and so don’t even realize that the ecclesiastical term “proper” exists which describes the [u][i]exercise of jurisdiction.[/i][/u] Thus, many don’t even know that this distinction between “ordinary”, “immediate” and “proper” existed even with the old 1917 Code of Canon Law. Most think that the terms “ordinary” and “immediate” are the only terms that exist, and think that these terms describe the exercise of jurisdiction. But these terms don’t actually refer to the
exercise of jurisdiction, but rather the
nature of jurisdiction. Many imbibe this error because they wrongly interpret “ordinary” and “immediate” according to their secular usage, instead of their ecclesiastical definition. In secular usage, “ordinary” means “regular” or “every-day,” while “immediate” means “without any hesitation or impediment.” With these secular meanings, it is easy to
misunderstand that the terms “ordinary” and “immediate” refer to the exercise of jurisdiction. So when one reads that the Pope has “ordinary and immediate” jurisdiction over every diocese, people think that this means that the Pope has the canonical authority to run the day-to-day affairs of any diocese, and thus potentially replace any bishop. But that is far from the truth. In fact, though canon law attaches the terms “ordinary and immediate” to the jurisdiction of the Pope with respect to every diocese, it
does not attach the word “proper” to the jurisdiction of the Pope in every diocese. As already explained,
only the local bishop correctly and canonically has the
proper authority to administer the day-to-day affairs of his local diocese.
FYI, not just the Pope, but all head bishops in the Catholic understanding have “ordinary jurisdiction” in every local diocese within their jurisdiction. In other words, when an exigency occurs that requires the intervention of, say, a Metropolitan in a local diocese, his authority to intervene is “ordinary” – no one needs to give it to him, but it is inherent in the nature of his office as Metropolitan. It’s use might be activated by appeal, but the authority is inherent in his office nonetheless. Also, just as with the considerations of the papal office above, though the Metropolitan has ordinary jurisdiction in every local diocese within his jurisdiction, the Metropolitan does not have
proper jurisdiction in that local diocese – i.e., he does not have the authority to administer its day-to-day affairs. However, to be perfectly concise, if the local bishop was somehow impeded, and there was no extant co-adjutor bishop, then the proper administration of that local diocese devolves on the Metropolitan – such a prerogative for that exigency is inherent in his office, and part of his “ordinary jurisdiction.” The same applies at every level of the hierarchy – if all forms of authority at a certain level is somehow impeded, then the proper jurisdiction devolves naturally and inherently on the next level of authority.
Informed Catholics who know these facts won’t be influenced by the exaggerated excesses of Absolutist Petrine advocates nor the sensationalist fearmongering of Low Petrine advocates. Informed Catholics who know these facts are secure that the Catholic Church does not teach,
and has never taught – as reflected in the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vatican 1, Vatican 2, and our Canons – that the Pope can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants in the Church.
Outside of the ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria, just where did you find this hierarchy of jurisdiction in the first millennium?
Here are just a few of many canons (i.e., Church
laws indicating
potestas) that demonstrate and affirm the High Petrine position in the early Church.
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account them their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…Apostolic Canon 34 (35 in Greek)
Let…the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in [Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis], since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that a man ought not to be bishop.Canon 6, First Ecumenical Council of Nicea.
If a bishop or clergyman have a difference with the Metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Patriarch of the See…Canon 9, Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.
…Metropolitans of the aforesaid sees should be ordained by the Archbishop [i.e., Patriarch] of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.Canon 28, Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon
It is decreed that the Metropolitan have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him…Canon 9, Synod of Antioch (341 A.D.)
It shall be unlawful for any bishop to hold synods by themselves without the Metropolitan…Canon 20, Synod of Antioch (341 A.D.)
You ask whether Alexandria was the only See that exercised the High Petrine model. I would say that since the Canons above are from Ecumenical Councils or from sources outside of the See of Alexandria, the High Petrine model was exercised by the Church universal, the Catholic Church.
The Absolutist Petrine view
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.
Agreed. The Absolutist Petrine view is a fantasy, not supported by the Vatican Councils or the Catholic Canons (I am currently debating at CAF a Latin Catholic of the Absolutist Petrine persuasion who believes that the confirmation of the Pope is the
only thing that grants an Ecumenical Council its authority and infallibility). However, the recent action in the EO Antiochene Patriarchate – making all bishops under Metropolitans mere auxiliary bishops – seems to reflect an Absolutist Petrine position.
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;
Given that I’ve met many EO who hold this Low Petrine “caricature” (and my “caricature” actually comes from them), and given that the more generally democratic nature of EO ecclesiology gives such a view the potential to be official, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
second, that properly understood, the low Petrine view is actually the authentic ecclesiology of the first millennium Church.
I hope I have demonstrated that such a position is untenable. I will say that I think the Low Petrine novelty is only slightly less damaging than the Absolutist Petrine novelty for the unity of the Church.
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".
That it is enshrined in Canon law means that it is indeed a matter of
potestas, though, as stated, it can and must be maintained by
auctoritas.
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.
Again, your view here is conditioned on a rather different understanding of “jurisdiction” than the one I hold. If one understands “jurisdiction” in terms of love and solicitude, and not control, then it can’t be doubted that the bishop of Rome had (and has) universal jurisdiction.
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.
I can agree with this, but, as noted, the existence of Apostolic Canon 34 makes the issue a matter of
potestas (though, as always, to be maintained through
auctoritas).
The transition from auctoritas to potestas begins in the West in the 10th century, as part of the effort to reform 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.
I can only partly agree with your assessment. I agree that the Petrine primacy was exercised differently in the second millenium than in the first millenium. I have always surmised that in the second millennium, the siege mentality of the papacy against secular encroachment into ecclesiastical affairs made an unfortunate migration into his relations with his brother bishops. But what was new was not a shift from
auctoritas to
potestas. The Church
officially recognized the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome from the beginning (Apostolic Canon 34, the Canons of Sardica, etc.). What changed was the increasing centralization of authority in the hands of the bishop of Rome, to the detriment of the authority of the local bishops.
Dvornik would entirely agree with me that the notion of a "jurisdictional" papacy in the first millennium is utterly anachronistic.
How does Dvornik interpret the Canons of Sardica? This is appellate jurisdiction, admittedly, but it is universal jurisdiction nonetheless (again, with “jurisdiction” understood as “love and solicitude,” not “control”).
Looking forward to responses.
Blessings,
Marduk
