* Olivier Clement’s You Are Peter: An Orthodox Theologian’s Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy (New City Press, 2003).

* Aidan Nichols’s Rome and the Eastern Churches: A Study in Schism (T. and T. Clark, 1991). This one isn’t entirely about the Papacy, but it does contain a very thorough and fair overview of the problem from a Catholic perspective. It is out of print and exceedingly rare (though I vaguely remember hearing that Fr Nichols is preparing a new edition).

Update – According to the following link, Ignatius Press will publish the revised, updated edition of Fr Nichols’s book: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2008/06/a-pearl-in-the.html

If you mean by your question (which you probably do not) a historical as well as theological one, I would say:

PRO

*Communio: Church and Papacy in Early Christianity* by Ludwig Hertling, SJ (Loyola University Press, 1972)

*Jurisdiction in the Early Church: Episcopal and Papal* by Dom Gregory Dix (London, 1975: Church literature Association)

ANTI (Orthodox)

*The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church,* by Afanassiev, Kolouzmine, Meyendorff and Schmemann. Originally published in 1961 by Faith Press, London and lately reprinted by St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press

HISTORICAL

*The Church and the Papacy* by Trevor Gervase Jalland (London, 1946: SPCK). This is a big detailed book by a moderately pro-papal Anglican clergyman that focuses on the first seven centuries.

What, in anybody’s opinion, is the best systematic apology (book, website, article, whatever) both for the Catholic view of primacy, and against it (or for the Orthodox view, if you prefer)?

Thank you.

I would be interested in your ideas (or anyones) on how the 5th century arguments for and against Constantinopolitan prerogatives impinge upon those later exercised by Constantinople following the schism.

And, in any case, Rome refused to recognize the Council of Constantinople of 381 as an “ecumenical council” until Pope John II did so, rather offhandedly, in 534. Previous popes such as Leo, Gelasius and Hormisdas had refused to do so in strong terms — and, of course, they were historically correct, as that 381 meeting had merely been an Eastern synod, with corresponding Western ones in Rome in 382 and 383, one of which had both rejected Constantinople’s elevation to second rank and explicitly rejected the idea that a see’s standing in the ecclesiastical rank was due to its secular status (and asserting that Rome’s primacy was due to no synod, but to the will of Christ expressed through St. Peter), while at the same time accepting the revised version of the Nicene Creed that is associated with the 381 Constantinopolitan council.

At times I am rather inclined to regret that Rome altered its stance in 534. More curious still, however, is the fact that Alexandria which also, and for understandable reasons, rejected the ecumenical status of Constantinople I, only recognized its ecumenical status later still — in the Seventh Century (both Copts and Chalcedonian alike).

Perhaps I am the only one interested in this discussion at this time, but there are some interesting facets to it.

First, “Canon 28″ is a bit of a misnomer as it is not canonical. There isn’t a Canon 28 for Chalcedon 451. But, this proposed canon perhaps could give an indication of Eastern thought on the Primacy of Rome and the hoped for primacy of Constantinople as Bp. Hilarion suggests, or could it?

The article of this post, “The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy” and the apologetic summary I link to in Comment 2, look at the penumbra of communications around Chalcedon 451 which tell a different story.

Without rehearsing the additional references found in the article and the link above, one can summarize that, in fact, it was most common for ecclesiastics East and West to refer to the See of Rome in Petrine rather than imperial terms. That is, no one seems inclined to address the papacy as the See of the First Imperial Capital, but rather as the See of Peter, the Apostolic See, etc. This is born out not only in the communications surrounding this Council but is the standard practice among Christians throughout history.

So, why would this proposed and rejected canon imply that Rome is the first See only because of its location in the imperial capital? The motivation is obvious. It is the only justification possible for elevating Constantinople which was neither ancient at the time, nor apostolic. It would surely be convenient for Constantinople to have this new status because of its importance at the time. But, this is not a theological justification for such a shift.

Now, it is true that the Second Ecumenical Council accorded Constantinople second place of honor behind Rome based not on theological or historical grounds, but on imperial ones. But, I think we can all agree that there is a serious qualitative difference between honor and jurisdiction, for if not there would not be a divided Church today. So, what can justify elevation for honor may not, and in this case cannot, justify an elevation of jurisdiction.

So, far from revealing, as Bishop Hilarion suggests (in his talk at the recent SVS Conference–see http://ancientfaith.com/specials/svs_jan2008/ ), the mind of the Eastern Church on the significance of Rome, this rejected canon only reveals a failed justification for the See of Constantinople’s jurisdiction at the time.

The other question that comes to mind is Bishop Hilarion’s motivation in asserting that this canon reveals the East’s understanding of Roman Primacy. It is not good form to assign motives to living persons, so I won’t. But, it does seem that this is one of the essential leaps necessary to justify 3rd Rome which also lacks apostolic authority and antiquity. Perhaps others who are more knowledgeable will have more to say about this.

For a “Cliff’s Notes” version of the same material, I found this article helpful:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a35.htm