Via Byzantine Texas, a “robo-translation” of this news article from the of the Moscow Patriarchate [a few comments in blue]:
As the President of the Department for External Church Relations of Moscow Patriarchate popular idea several media working document of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church does not reflect the position of the Orthodox parties on the issue of primacy of the Roman bishop, and can only be seen as merely auxiliary material for further work. [Compare this judgment of Met. Hilarion with the words of Met. John Zizioulas, that “On the whole the basic ideas of Ravenna are accepted by all the orthodox churches.” Met. Hilarion, on behalf of the Russian Church, also voiced his disagreement with Ravenna as well.]
.
Contrary to the assertions of the press, at the meeting of the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission in Vienna, there were no “breakthroughs” made. [“The press”, of course, were following the lead of both Met. John Zizioulas and Archbishop Kurt Koch. Met. Hilarion is suggesting, I think, that Met. John shouldn’t be speaking for the Orthodox.] All the session was devoted to discussion of the role of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium. On this subject the steering committee of the Commission had earlier prepared a document discussed in the last year in Cyprus . A draft version of the document “flowed” [“leaked”?] in the media and has been published.
.
It was assumed that Vienna will be able to finish the discussion of this document. But nothing happened: It took a lot of time discussion of the status of the text. Orthodox members from the very beginning of the meeting insisted that “the Cyprus document” can neither be formally issued on behalf of the Commission, nor signed by its members. From our perspective, this paper needs substantial revision, but after treatment he may have only the status of “working document” that is merely auxiliary material (instrumentum laboris), which can be used to prepare the following documents, but he will not have any official status.
.
“The Cyprus paper has strictly historical in nature and, speaking about the role of the bishop of Rome, almost no mention of the bishops of other Local Churches of the first millennium, creating misconceptions about how to distribute power in the early Church. In addition, the document is not clear and precise allegations that the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium did not extend to the East. It is hoped that these gaps and omissions will be filled in the finalization of the text.
.
After a lengthy discussion, the Commission decided that the document needed more work and that a final decision on his status will be made at the next plenary meeting of the committee, ie expected in two years. By this time, will be drafted a new document, which will consider the same issues, but only from the theological point of view.
.
For the Orthodox participants [All of them? Who is speaking for them, Met. Hilarion or Met. John Zizioulas?] is obvious that the first millennium jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was distributed solely to the West, whereas in the East territories were divided between the four Patriarchy – Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Bishop of Rome had no direct jurisdiction of the East [would very many Catholic theologians and historians argue that he did?], despite the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs spoke to him as an arbiter in theological disputes. Data treatment did not have a systematic character and in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the holder of the supreme authority throughout the universal Church.
.
I hope that in subsequent meetings of the commission the Catholic side would agree with this position, as evidenced by numerous historical evidence. [Met. Hilarion is certainly right in wanting to have his Church’s ecclesiological views reflected in the work of the Commission, especially since his Church is by far the largest Orthodox Church: its views are those of the Orthodox majority! At the same time, I do think Met. Hilarion’s words are as much about the continued ecclesiological spats with Constantinople, as they are about old ecclesiological spats with Rome.]
I don’t really Hilarion and Zizioulas as quite as far apart as you suggest. The leaked Ravenna document was intended as a historical treatment of the exercise of Roman universal primacy (not jurisdiction) in the first millennium. I didn’t find the historical scholarship involved that impressive, and perhaps this was at least partially addressed in Vienna.
Hilarion is right, however, in pointing out that even an impeccable historical treatment can only provide us with part of the picture. An examination of the regional primacies exercised at the time would help in determining whether the universal primacy was significantly different in kind, as well as offering a picture of how the regional and universal primacies interacted and intersected. Hilarion is also correct in insisting that the theological aspects of the issue still need to be addressed, as Rome insists that its primacy (whatever its specific practical significance) is of divine origin and thus part of the esse of the Church.
I didn’t read Zizioulas as claiming that the Ravenna document (or any redaction at Viennese) was a breakthrough. He did allude to a shared understanding that Rome had exercised some form of substantive primacy in the first millennium. But Hilarion doesn’t deny this (one would really have to wear polemic blinkers to argue otherwise from the historical record). Where Koch, Zizioulas (and I) see progress is in the agreement to consider this narrow issue settled (as it has been for serious Catholic and Orthodox historians for some time) and to move on to the issues Hilarion is pointing to.
Also keep in mind that Russia did not dissent from Ravenna because of the document, but because of internal Orthodox ecclesiological quibbling that had nothing to do with Catholic positions or claims. My guess is that Hilarion is not so much trying to give Constantinople an elbow jab this time, as trying to forestall the anti-ecumenist brigade charging in with the usual intemperate accusations of “treason,” “apostasy,” “heresy” and “sell-out.” Their respective statements strike me as a tag-team effort with Zizioulas’ job being to freshen the waters, and Hilarion’s job to calm them.
I am truly dyslexic. Sorry for the editing errors. :-(
is obvious that the first millennium jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was distributed solely to the West
Is obvious, is it?
That would come as news to all those Eastern hierarchs who appealed to Rome to arbitrate their internecine disputes when they could not come to a resolution among themselves. (Examples have been furnished here many times, but I will gladly furnish them again.)
No one claims that the 1st-millennium papacy operated (in practice) exactly like the Vatican I papacy. But it is absurd to claim that its jurisdiction did not extend to the East. Maximos the Confessor, among others, might beg to differ.
I think he separates theological primacy and direct jurisdiction.
We are dealing with a machine translation, so subtleties might have easily been lost.
Be that as it may, the evidence for appellate jurisdiction, at least, is clear. There is also strong evidence that Rome could suspend Eastern bishops at least to the degree that they were made to face trials in the East (which might or might not have involved Roman participation, and might or might not have gone the way Rome would have preferred).
But I can’t find any evidence of Rome “ordaining” bishops or lesser clerics for the East, imposing changes to the Eastern liturgy, or legislating for the universal Church as whole.
On the other hand, on those very rare occasions when the Pope actually was in Constantinople, what evidence we have clearly describes him as overshadowing the Patriarch and as always presiding at joint eucharistic celebration (though this evidence could be consistent with the Patriarch inviting him to do so, as much as with an exercise of prior Roman right). This evidence also comes almost exclusively from Latin sources, and so might merely reflect 7th century Latin expectations of what “must” have occurred rather than objective fact.
A real English translation is now available:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=7741
Hi! I’m not sure what you mean by “direct jurisdiction,” but the popes certainly served as “courts of final appeal” for the first-millennium church. Even a dumb-dumb like me can furnish examples of this.
Even in the West, even today, the pope does not ordinarily exercise direct (in the sense of immediate) jurisdiction. He does not interfere in bishops’ dioceses unless he absolutely has to.
Michaël, from my understanding, Rome started ordaining bishops at the request of bishops themselves. This avoids politics and pressure of local officials (e.g. see the Catholic Church in China) from imposing their pick. The usual process is for the local area to offer some candidates and for the the Pope (or more likely his delegates) to pick the best choice. As such, I don’t think Rome would demand this of the Orthodox, but considering that ROCOR was formed precisely out of the fear that the Communists were influencing the choice of bishops, something along these lines might eventually be adopted by the Orthodox regardless of whether they reach an agreement with Rome.
As for imposing changes to the Eastern liturgy, Orthodox Patriarchs had this power (see the Old Believers schism), so it really shouldn’t be an issue. Patriarchs have also authorized new Rites (e.g. Western Rite) so this shouldn’t be an issue either. Note that the liturgical changes in the Catholic Churches all came from Ecumenical Councils and it was up to the bishops to implement it. But there usually is a lot of confusion when such changes happen (especially in Vatican II) on what really was called for. The Vatican II, many bishops took advantage of the confusion to push their own agenda and the current mess in liturgy resulted. It’s within the Pope or Patriarch’s power to call the bishops back to doing what was agreed to in the Council since he’s speaking with the authority of the Council.
Urm, what I was trying to say is that here is no evidence of the Pope doing such things in the East in the first millennium.
You are right, of course, that in the West Rome was appointing bishops, altering the liturgy, and legislating; but it was doing so as part of its regional primacy.
The question was rather what kind of jurisdiction did Rome enjoy in the East at this time. My answer was that, doctrinal authority aside, Rome jurisdiction in the East in the first millennium was essentially appellate.
The appellate nature is definitely there, but I can’t help but also read a pastoral element also in the first 1000 years. Let’s look at the Orthodox situation in North America. Such a fracturing of the Orthodox Church should never have happened and to my knowledge did not happen in the first 1000 years. Such an issue doesn’t need an ecumenical counsel to resolve, and the appellate hierarchy isn’t good enough, otherwise the Patriarch of Constantinople would have been appealed to and it would have been resolved before it grew to the state that it currently is. Pride, the source of many sins makes a purely appellate relationship unworkable. What was needed was good shepherding at every level. The kind spoken of in Ephesians 5.
From my understanding, the Orthodox are organizing an ecumenical counsel to restructure in order of primacy which older churches being more dominant than younger ones (regardless of whether the younger churches are as big as Russia and the older churches are tiny.). The exact nature of that dominance hasn’t been worked out (to my knowledge) but I believe that it will end up with a hierarchy of both appeal and shepherding.
If that happens, then the way forward will be clear. Either the Orthodox Church in North America gets organized into a unity an no further situations like this happens ever again in any other country, in which case this model will likely be adopted as a path to unity between east and west. Or the situation won’t be resolved. In which case, I don’t see much hope for the unity of east and west.
Either way, I doubt unity with Rome will not happen until there is unity within the Orthodox Church. But until that day, we need to rely on each other and work together since the world has bought into the “Gospel of Death” is in desperate need of Christ’s love and healing.
Anil, those are excellent points. I agree–the popes exercised both an appelate jurisdiction and a shepherding jurisdiction during the first millennium. (I’d never thought of it that way before!)
I am not optimistic re the prospects of Orthodox unity in America. From what I can gather, many members of the OCA resent what they deem a “quasi-papal” power grab by the European hierarchs, expecially the EP. They don’t want the Old Country bossing around Americans.
I know very little about it, but my sense is that there is a lot of resistance to interference by the Old World patriarchs. Perhaps our Othodox posters can fill us in re this?
An official English translation:
http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/09/27/news27010/
“The bishop of Rome did not exercise any direct jurisdiction in the East in spite of the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs appealed to him as arbiter in theological disputes. These appeals were not systematic and can in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the supreme authority in the whole Universal Church.”
Why was the bishop of Rome selected as arbiter in theological disputes?
Evagrius,
That’s difficult to answer, as any answer risks begging the question. The simplest I could provide is that Rome was universally recognized as the first Church (not chronologically, but in importance because of its dual apostolic foundation by Peter and Paul). Essentially, it was assumed that anything Rome disagreed with wasn’t going to stick. So, if you are going to appeal to higher authority, you might as well try to make sure you had Rome on your side.
It’s important to understand, however, that Roman theological arbitration did not necessarily “work” in the short term in the sense of bringing about submission by one side. With the possible exception of Nestorius (who denied to his dying breath ever having been a “Nestorian” as we understand it), no “heresiarch” ever concluded that he had been wrong simply by virtue of failing to get Roman support.
All heretics ultimately ended up contesting Papal authority. But then, they contested any authority that didn’t provide the answer they wanted. So you can’t point to them as proof that no such Papal authority existed. For that, you would have to look for orthodox bishops who spurned Papal authority and got away with it in the long run.
Cyprian contested Rome’s judgment on the validity of heretical baptism with no apparent consequences, but his view lost out after his death. Off hand, I can’t think of any other such case except possibly the Milanese schism over the Three Letters, but the incident is so confused and poorly documented that we should hesitate to draw any firm conclusions from it.
Michael–another example would be the date-of-Easter controversy. (Please don’t ask me to spell its official name! ;))
Here again, the papal position eventually won out.
Whether the popes prevail quickly or slowly is, in a sense, immaterial. The fact is, they prevail. (In doctrinal controversies, I mean, such as the one(s) you cite. And even in disciplinary controversies, at least in the date-of-Easter case.)
Even today, the pope faces TONS of resistance from dissenters and others. As you note, the presence of resistance does not invalidate papal authority. All authority figures face resistance!
It may take the popes some time, for instance, to straighten up the post-VCII mess in the American Church. But, acting collegially with the bishops, the popes eventually will straighten out us mixed-up Americans….
Diane
Either the Orthodox Church in North America gets organized into a unity an no further situations like this happens ever again in any other country
When will that happen with the Eastern Catholics in North America? In particular for the Ukrainian and Ruthenian churches that started out here as one and later divided.
But I can’t find any evidence of Rome “ordaining” bishops or lesser clerics for the East, imposing changes to the Eastern liturgy, or legislating for the universal Church as whole.
On the other hand, on those very rare occasions when the Pope actually was in Constantinople, what evidence we have clearly describes him as overshadowing the Patriarch and as always presiding at joint eucharistic celebration (though this evidence could be consistent with the Patriarch inviting him to do so, as much as with an exercise of prior Roman right). This evidence also comes almost exclusively from Latin sources, and so might merely reflect 7th century Latin expectations of what “must” have occurred rather than objective fact.
Michaël,
I would be interested to know what light you can shed on the case of Pope Agapetus’ visit to Constantinople. In February of 536 Pope Agapetus entered Constantinople with great pomp and honor. Agapetus then deposed the crypto-Monophysite Patriarch Anthimus (who was a favorite of the Empress) and personally consecrated a new Patriarch, Mennas. I believe Pope Agapetus is commemorated in the Byzantine Liturgy on April 22nd. The actions of Agapetus seem to go a bit beyond your characterization of papal visits to Constantinople (which would better describe the amicable visit of Pope Constantine in 709).
The question was rather what kind of jurisdiction did Rome enjoy in the East at this time. My answer was that, doctrinal authority aside, Rome jurisdiction in the East in the first millennium was essentially appellate.
Doctrinal authority aside, I think an essentially appellate jurisdiction in function would be perfectly acceptable to us Catholics. Don’t you agree?
No one expects or wants the Eastern Churches to be under the same level of bureaucratic control as the Latin Church (the Vatican’s bureaucracy is slow enough already without several hundred million more people to attend to). Leaving the Eastern Patriarchates functionally autonomous is in everyone’s interest. Reserving to Rome only the right to hear appeals and to do as Pope Agapetus did in extraordinary circumstances would not violate the Catholic dogmas (though it might ruffle the feathers of ultra-Ultramontanists, if any actually still exist).
It is the doctrinal authority (as articulated in Vatican I and explicated in Vatican II) of the Pope that does seems to be the sticking point. While most Catholics can see the Pope’s ex cathedra declarations being irreformable as a legitimate direct development from him being the highest appellate jurisdiction in the Church (analogous to the way SCOTUS is the highest appellate court in America; except having divine protection, unlike SCOTUS) the Orthodox do not. The Orthodox are not, yet (at least from the way I read Met. Hilarion’s statement), willing to concede that the Pope did in fact exercise authority (by divine appointment) as the final court of appeals during the first millennium. You and I and many others may see in the historical record this function (innumerable individual instances, Sardica, etc.) but until the Orthodox see it as well there will be no resolution.
James G
Wow, what a great post, James G. And I agree–I don’t think Catholics have the slightest objection to a papacy whose jurisdictional role in the East is essentially appellate. As you say, the Vatican bureaucracy is slow enough already, LOL!
My answer was that, doctrinal authority aside, Rome jurisdiction in the East in the first millennium was essentially appellate.
Father Luke Rivington does cite examples where the popes acted proactively in the East, without waiting for an appeal. I will have to re-look them up when I get a chance. Granted such cases were few, but they were significant (at least in terms of today’s ecumenical dialogues).
Pope Theophilus of Alexandria was so proactive in deposing St John Chrysostom. I wonder if that was an exercise of papal jurisdiction, in this case not of Rome, but of Alexandria?
How many of those who read this blog live near enough to Scranton, PA to have any possibility of coming I don’t know, but I thought I would mention that a symposium is to take place at the University of Scranton on Friday, October 15, from 3-5 PM (panel discussion) and 7-8:45 PM (keynote address) in the De Naples building on campus. It will bring together Roman Catholic, Polish National Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican clergy and scholars to reflect on current challenges and prospects in ecumenical dialogue and to consider the state of ecumenism 10 years after the release of the document Dominus Iesus by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The keynote speaker, Msgr Paul McPartlan, is a member of international Catholic-Orthodox and Catholic-Methodist dialogue commissions and has recently returned from Vienna.
Dear Will,
This sounds like a worthy endeavor. I’d be happy to advertise it in a new post. Do you happen to have a link, an image of a flyer, etc.?
Update: Found a link. I will post the information.
I’m guessing the timing isn’t coincidental on this.
Dear Irenaeus,
Great that you already found the link. I was just now about to send it to you. Thanks for posting it.
AMM, not sure what you mean about the timing. If you mean 10 years after Dominus Iesus, yes the symposium was timed to coincide more or less with that anniversary. Or did you mean something else?