Ancient Faith Radio has audio from the recent Fellowship of Ss. Alban and Sergius conference “Rome, Constantinople and Canterbury, Mother Churches”, held at St Vladimir’s Seminary, June 4-8, 2008. I have only listened to the first two lectures, by Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Archdiocese and Bishop Keith Ackerman of the Episcopal Diocese of Quincy, Illinois. I look forward to hearing the lectures on primacy by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware), Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev), Fr Richard John Neuhaus, and Fr John Erickson.
Update #1 – Richard Barrett, proprietor of the blog Leitourgeia kai Qurbana, attended the Conference and has reported about it here and here. Dr William Tighe also attended the Conference and Touchstone magazine will publish his report.
Update #2 – Richard Barrett has the last two parts of his report on the Conference here and here.
At your implied recommendation I listened through the talk by Metropolitan Kallistos in its entirety. It took some getting used to his personal (British) style which as an American, I found a bit off putting, but it was a fascinating listen. He had some great points to make.
To summarize, he was responding to Ravenna for the most part and saw two hopeful signs. The second of these signs was that the internal logic of the document suggested a way forward on papal primacy in that synodality always presumed a corresponding protos or an individual office with primacy. And since we can speak of an ecumenical council, we must also speak of an ecumenical primacy. Further, he said that ministry of primacy must also include a measure of jurisdiction. To have a ministry without the authority to carry it out is not to have a ministry at all. So, an ecumenical primacy with jurisdiction is a real possibility provided that such a primacy always be exercised in consultation with the synodal body. In the case of the pope this would be consultation with the patriarchs and the entire episcopate.
This brings us to his first sign of hope, namely, that Ravenna fully assumes the three fold authority structure within the episcopate the universal (pope), the regional (patriarch) and the local (bishop/eparch).
The Metropolitan had a great deal to say about the necessity of a regional patriarchal authority, but this was expressed less in a positive fashion than in reaction to the pope’s dropping of the title, Patriarch of the West, which he regarded as an ominous development.
Having summarized (I hope faithfully) I would like to address this last point. It is unfortunate that the Metropolitan did not make reference to the Vatican’s official explanation of the dropping of the patriarchal title. Instead, the Metropolitan infers that the dropping of the title by the pope is a sign that Rome no longer wishes to recognize the validity of regional authorities. I dont think this is the case. The reality is that in the case of Rome, which is unique, the universal authority and the patriarchal authority are coextensive in the Latin Rite. The patriarchal title added nothing to the authority of the pope. Dropping it had zero impact on the life of the Catholic Church. I do not think that this can be understood as a denial of the patriarchal authorities of the East whose situation is quite different.
The Vatican’s explanation also indicates that the patriarchal title does not have a parallel history with the patriarchal titles of the East. It simply has never been an important attribute of the Roman Church:
“The title ‘patriarch of the West’ was adopted in the year 642 by Pope Theodore. Thereafter it appeared only occasionally and did not have a clear meaning. It flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries, in the context of a general increase in the pope’s titles, and appeared for the first time in the Annuario Pontificio in 1863.”
So, I am not so sure that this development is as ominous as the Metropolitan thinks.
Overall, it is a very profitable listen. Thanks for the link.
I too listened to several talks, Metropolitan Kallistos, and Fr. John Neuhaus. I found both talks filled with hope. However, I feel the talks really missed the point of stating clearly how different both churches view the role of Peter and how each bishop exercises that office, as opposed to the current Roman Catholic position. Certainly more discussion will be forthcoming to face that key issue. Perhaps certain signs can be indicative of change. I find it rather strange that Bishops in communion with Rome kiss his ring or hand as if he were of a higher sacramental order. In the East all bishops greet each other with the mutual kissing of hands, just as priest do with each other. Recently I saw a clip that showed the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch and the Pope greeting each other in that fashion. I hope the trend expands, signs of new found love and respect for each other as successors of the Apostles. Both Orthodox and Catholics need to view each others as brothers who are getting to know each other, setting aside the bitter polemics of the past.
As one who was fortunate enough to be at this event in person, let me make a couple of general comments:
1) It was very depressing to hear some of the assessments which were offered of the current Anglican situation in this country. Between Bp. Ackerman and Fr. Warren Tanghey, one very much got an image of a ship sinking, and rapidly, with these poor people clearly feeling they have no place to go.
That said, something that emerged very clearly is that conservative Anglicans are not themselves in agreement about what they wish to be. Some simply wish to be conservative Protestants, some wish to be Anglo-Catholics, some wish to be Catholic Anglicans (or “Anglo-Papist” as some muttered), and so on. A Rite I Eucharist, celebrated by Bp. Ackerman on Saturday, using a Byrd Mass in Latin for the ordinary, was responded to by many with some rather unreserved anger. “Too many people fought and died for the vernacular and the ability to participate for us to trot out a concert in Latin as though it’s representative,” was something I heard from a number of people. (I wanted to say something in return about Catholics who died in England rather than renounce what they believed to be the apostolic faith, but I felt it would probably not be in keeping with the spirit of the conference.)
2) Bp. Hilarion Alfeyev, I’m afraid, will probably be remembered — unfairly — as the stick in the mud who rained on everybody’s happy ecumenical parade. I say “unfairly” because I believe he was simply trying to be the sobering voice of reality, reminding us of where we are at, and that we are not able to simply pretend we’re someplace else for the sake of convenience and warm fuzzies. (As engaging as I found Fr. Neuhaus, I rather felt that that was what his “The only thing lacking for full communion between Catholics and Orthodox is full communion” assertion boiled down to.) “We cannot simply invent an ecclesiology,” he said more than once.
Pictures and personal reflections (with more on the way) can be found here: http://leitourgeia.wordpress.com.
Richard
As I have been mulling over what I have heard from the Metropolitan, some other questions have come to mind.
First, I frankly find the title of the conference very strange coming from an Orthodox seminary. Exactly how is it that an Orthodox theologian can conceive of Canterbury as a “mother church?”
I see several good reasons not to.
1. The notion of some parity between Constantinople, Rome and Canterbury is a simple restatement of the “Branch Theory” posited by Anglicans of the 16th Century. Today, most Anglicans have given up such a claim as it is historically untenable. That the Orthodox would buy into an ecclesiology that is so novel and unsupportable is beyond comprehension.
2. In what sense can Canterbury be considered a “mother church” when she was founded from Rome?–unless we should now consider Rome a grandmother church or the supreme mother church or some such thing.
3. The elephant in the living room, make that plural, are WO and now GO (gay ordination). How is it that the Orthodox are still giving any credence to such a wayward institution? If many among the Orthodox still consider Rome heterodox, what must they consider Canterbury?
These points make me wonder if the organizers of this Orthodox conference aren’t closet theological liberals. I am not making any accusations, just wondering aloud.
Second, I am wondering why the Metropolitan ignored on June 7th what was reported here on May 21st–that Moscow had rejected Ravenna. I am wondering if he might think Moscow irrelevant to the EP-Roman relationship. I just cant figure this one out.
The conference (which I attended) was also the annual meeting (the first time in America) of the Anglican/Orthodox “Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius.” The meaning of the conference title can be expanded thus: Rome, Constantinople and Canterbury — Rome as “universal mother” (or primate), Constantinople as “mother of all the Orthodox?” (which some participants dismissed as a “second-rate pseudo-papacy”) and Canterbury as “a mother in any sense?” (or rather a feckless step-mother).
I shall be reporting on the conference in *Touchstone* in due course.
One sad, if peripheral, aspect, was the sense conveyed to the conference that the ECUSA bureaucracy regarded two of the three Anglican speakers (Bishop Ackerman and Fr. Tanghe) as from the “extremist fringe” and so likely to discourage interest in such conferences on their part.
Another speaker, Metropolitan Hilarion, was the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate who walked out of the Ravenna meeting. It is clear that the Moscow Patriarchate regards Constantinople as trying to parlay itself into a “second papacy” in world Orthodoxy, and that Rome is, deliberately or not, going along with and facilitating Constantinople’s pretensions — and that Moscow will oppose and resist Constantinople on this matter.
I urge interested readers to listen closely to and compare the addresses of Matropolitan Kallistos and Bishop Hilarion (who are close friends, despite their divergences, as Hilarion was one of Kyr Kallistos’s many doctoral students in Oxford), as well as that of Fr. John Erickson.
It is worth noting that Met. Kallistos and Bp. Hilarion seemed, at least to me, to be far closer than it might appear at first blush. Bp. Hilarion did acknowledge, after all, that despite his problems with the Ravenna statement (and overall pessimism regarding Catholic-Orthodox relations), it reflected struggles on both sides to try to come to an agreement. Met. Kallistos also made some comments which, frankly, seemed a bit sharper than I would have expected (such as his assessment of the dropping of the “Patriarch of the West” papal title).
Bill — it was nice to meet you there. Hopefully we see each other again.
Richard
Listening to Richard John Neuhaus, it seems that some comment also needs to be made regarding the Metropolitan’s advocacy of the role of Patriarch. The Metropolitan consistently refers to the role of Patriarch as a “regional authority” which is the most benign presentation of the matter. As more and more Patriarchates have been created, particularly to correspond to nation states, the Patriarchal role has morphed from a mere regional authority to becoming a true national one. In the West this is commonly referred to as the error of Gallicanism.
Ecclesiastical nationalism has several tendancies which are truly Christian disvalues. First, national churches have the tendency to mirror the political aspirations of the nations which are often very sinful. Second, a national church has the tendency in history to be manipulated directly by the state through the civil naming of bishops. These are not minor problems. Furthermore, ecclesiastical nationalism as an ecclesiological development is utterly unsupported by early church history in which there is no such thing as a national church.
Fr J.
I live in Greece. I can witness only to well to the truth of what you say about the problems with national churches. However well disposed one is to Orthodoxy, the politicisation of Church life is not edifying to behold. However, the fact that the Orthodox Church in Greece has not strayed from the Apostolic Faith in spite of its espousal of nationalistic causes, is in contrast to Anglican erastianism, which has always gone hand in hand with doctrinal levelling and relativism. A Catholic cannot put Orthodox and Anglicans on the same level when it comes to ecumenism. Hence I too am a bit bemused by talk of “mother Churches”. If Canterbury is a mother, then the father, surely was British colonialism. Not exactly a mariage made in heaven, if you ask my opinion. By the way, as a compatriot of Bishop Kallistos, I hope you don’t find my own British style too “ofputting”! ;-)
Fr. Paul — the term “mother church” was used as an umbrella term for purposes of discussing the issue of primacy, more than anything. The issue at hand was, how does the notion of primacy function within the three different communions?
Bishop Hilarion’s very frank explication of various Orthodox predicaments was refreshing. However, his resolution of the problem of Orthodox primacy was very dissatisfying. He recognized that the lack of a primacy among the Orthodox is the source many problems, particularly in the lack of a final arbiter between disputing churches which have arbitration or negotiation as their only recourse. The prime example of the inability of the Orthodox to resolve differences he says is the cacophony of jurisdictions among the Orthodox “diaspora.”
What I find dissatisfying in his remarks is the assertion that the Orthodox must figure out what they mean by primacy in order begin fruitful talks with Rome. From a Catholic point of view anyway, it is fairly clear why the Orthodox have never achieved a consensus on pan-Orthodox primacy. Historically speaking, the Emperor held the position effectively of the primacy over the whole church. This is of course an odd and theologically untenable solution even if it endured in the East for a thousand plus years. From a Catholic point of view it is clear that the Orthodox have not arrived upon a clear sense of primacy among themselves because no Orthodox see has a theological basis for primacy–only Rome has such a theological foundation.
So, to say that one cannot speak with Rome about primacy until some other form of primacy is justified when only Rome has a claim to primacy is to condemn the Churches to an infinite loop of futility. This “solution” at worst plays into the hands of Moscow which seeks not theological/ecclesiological resolution but raw power as a mirror of the imperialist aspirations of Putin’s Russia. At best, this “solution” is an Orthodox version of the Anglican favorite approach to problems–kick the can down the road indefinitely. If after 2000 years the Orthodox have not effectively arrived at a workable notion and practice of primacy, what should make anyone think they will in the practical future? Second day after the Second Coming indeed!
But, of course, this ignores the personal desire of Christ that we may be one. As those who seek to be faithful to Christ himself, we ignore his prayer to our peril.
“From a Catholic point of view it is clear that the Orthodox have not arrived upon a clear sense of primacy among themselves because no Orthodox see has a theological basis for primacy–only Rome has such a theological foundation.”
Fr. Reardon said exactly the same thing, I think in the panel discussion Thursday evening (in which I was invited up to the table to serve as one of the panelists), that is, that Rome has the only credible claim to universal primacy because it possesses the tombs of SS Peter & Paul — but also that as presently exercised it is totally unacceptable to the Orthodox.
Thank you, Prof. Tighe. That Rome has the only credible claim the exercise of which may require modification, strikes me as the basis of the proposal of Ut Unum Sint.
Prof. Tighe, I am glad that you were “bidden to come up higher.” It was good to put a voice, if not a face, to a name. I am puzzled at how you identified yourself. It sounded like you began to call yourself a Malachite but interrupted yourself to say a kind of Ukrainian Catholic. Did I hear you correctly?
If I may —
1) I felt that an underlying, if unexpressed, part of Bp. Hilarion’s argument was, “This may be messy at times, but it’s the way it is.”
2) One place that the conference never quite went was establishing a working difference between primacy and supremacy. As I recall, however, a relevant point which Bp. Hilarion made here was that as it stands right now, Rome has two definitions of primacy — the one it uses for the Roman Catholics, and the one it uses for the Uniates. This is, effectively, an “invented ecclesiology” which would be unacceptable to the Orthodox. To that extent, Fr. J.’s point in post #11 — “to say that one cannot speak with Rome about primacy until some other form of primacy is justified when only Rome has a claim to primacy is to condemn the Churches to an infinite loop of futility” — is quite apt, and I think many Orthodox would very cheerfully agree that it will always be futile to speak with Rome about primacy. They might disagree, however, that this is necessarily a problem.
Met. Kallistos, however, alluded to another part of what’s at issue for the Orthodox — that Rome holds certain things to be dogma that *might* be acceptable to the Orthodox as theolegoumena. Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to roll back some of those dogmas to being theolegoumena, particularly in light of Vatican I. (I’m not certain I share the Metropolitan’s optimism that Vatican II balances out the excesses of Vatican I.) If we wish to relate this to primacy, we could suggest that papal primacy has led to questionable theolegoumena being dogmatized, which calls any number of things into question.
In other words, the Orthodox may perhaps be chasing their own tail on the issue of primacy, but there is a particular corner into which Rome has backed herself that does not help the matter any either. To that extent, the messy Orthodox ambiguity regarding primacy might be preferable to the awkwardness of the Roman clarity.
Richard
A further thought about the dropping of the title “Patriarch of the West” and it’s implications for the theology of Petrine Primacy. When the supression of that title was announced I fet a deal of perplexity; I immediately felt that I knew how the Orthodox would see it and they reacted as I had foreseen. Now it is true that the title was not primitive, that it was coined in immitation of the style adopted by the Eastern Patriarchs, and that the Roman primacy has not historically been exercised in a manner which is entirely parallel with theirs. Still, it might seem that droping it at tis juncture was, at best, a well-intentioned gaffe, liable to be misinterpreted. At worst, it might be what it has been interpreted as being, i.e. a crafty, nay jesuitical way of furthering the Roman claim to universal ordinary jurisdiction. THere is, however, a factor which tends to get overlooked, and which I believe to be the key to the whole matter: in the seventh century “Patriarch of the West” was not an inapt way of defining an excercise of Primacy which stretched from some ill-defined (and fought over) geographical boundary in Central/Eastern Europe to the atlantic Ocean. Now however that the Latin Church has been spread to the Americas, to sub-saharan Africa and to Asia and the Antipodes, it is clear that it is something of a misnomer.
Now, this much was said in the official explanation of the change. I wonder, however, whether there is not an idea in the mind of the Pope (the change was apparently his personal initiative. I think it is probably an embryonic idea, and that the Pope (who is no ultra-montane, as his whole career and writings so far demonstrate abundantly) may be preparing the ground for a further reform, for which the time is not yet ripe, but which would be of far more positive ecumenical import than the mere dropping of the title under discussion. Let me elaborate.
What if, in some medium to long term future, the Churches of the Global South and the Americas were to become Patriarchates? What if, in Communion with Rome and looking to her for the guarrantee of indefectibility in doctrine, they were allowed not only to govern themselves but to develop their own liturgical and canonical traditions more attuned to their cultural milieu than those conceived in and for Europe? Is this a pipe-dream? The present doctrinal confusion pervading the Latin Church, and the disiplinary and liturgical mess which accompanies it, doubtless show that we are not yet mature enough ecclesially for this to be a realistic option. But might it not be a development to be hoped for in a more serene future?
A good start, of course, would be to emancipate the Eastern Catholic Churches from the over-constraining apron strings of their Roman nanny, the Congragation for Eastern Churches. The interfering habits of the latter has had many unhappy consequences for their own internal cohesion and vitality. If Rome wants to convince the Orthodox that she is serious about finding ways of exercising the primacy which constitute less of a stumbling block, as was said in Ut Unum Sint, she has of course only to start there.
Fr. Paul,
Fascinating and frightening. On the theoretical level, the idea of quasi or completely independent Latin Patriarchates is an interesting one. But, I suspect such a plan would be frought with several problems.
1. The various autocephalies would mirror the chaos of the East at present and would consider a future ecumenical council a threat to their jurisdictions just as the present Orthodox Churches have frustrated all possibility of a Pan-Orthodox council.
2. The papacy’s universal jurisdiction is precisely what has saved the Catholic Church from the errors of Gallicanism and Americanism (which reared its head following each of the Vatican councils). Imagine what American Catholicism would look like if Americans had been choosing their own bishops over the past 30 years (since JPII)! Horror of horrors, we would look just like the Episcopal Church and Benedict would be in Rowan Williams shoes with all the responsibility for running the ship and none of the authority to do so.
Nay, automonous Patriarchates implies the internal nomination of bishops, the advent of national churches and thus all the crimes and pettiness the Orthodox have suffered for centuries. This would be institutional suicide, imho.
I would like to hear more about how the present set up between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches is an invented ecclesiology.
I’ll also note that in the panel discussion where Fr. Patrick said that Rome has primacy hands-down, there really was very little disagreement on this point. Even Bp. Hilarion acknowledged that primacy is clearly Rome’s, but it is a question of what that means.
Met. Kallistos put it this way: if Christ willed that there should be universal primacy in His church, then it cannot be anyplace other than Rome. The question, then, is what kind of primacy — but Vatican I is unacceptable to the Orthodox position, and therefore it is not possible to acknowledge the pope as universal patriarch. In his lecture, he would later say that he felt that papal primacy (at least as presently understood by Rome) is a sticker issue than papal infallibility.
Richard
I would like to hear more about how the present set up between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches is an invented ecclesiology.
I commented a couple of months ago that I thought Bishop Hilarion completely misconstrued Cardinal Kasper’s words:
https://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/two-from-bishop-hilarion/
I don’t think that Cardinal Kasper was inviting the Orthodox to become Uniates. I find it very difficult to believe that the Cardinal could possibly be that, well, stupid … even though I do think he could have chosen his words a bit more wisely.
Rather, I think his point was much simpler: papal primacy can, and has been, exercised in a number of different ways. The way that the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch relates to the Pope of Rome is clearly not identical to the way in which, say, the Archbishop of Baltimore relates to him. The Cardinal was simply using the Eastern Catholic Churches as an example of a different way of exercising primacy, not as the only possible way for Eastern Churches to relate to the Papacy.
The same point was made in Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II: clearly, the exercise of the Primacy has been a stumbling-block to separated Christians in the past. Probably this includes the way in which the Papacy has related to the Eastern Catholic Churches in the past, something which is so obviously unacceptable to the Orthodox.
Richard Barrett, Met. Kallistos said some apparently contradictory things about Vat. I. I would not accuse such an intelligent man of contradicting himself as he has certainly thought himself through far far more than most. So, perhaps you or others can help clarify what he might have meant.
As you have noted, the Metropolitan finds that there are ways to understand papal infallibility that he would find acceptible, but at the same time he very stridently calls Vatican I heretical. How can this be?
Eirenikon, thank you for your comment 19. This is the way I understood Bp. Hilarion in his talk at St. Vladimir also, though I may have misunderstood.
+++
I might add again what supreme irony I see in criticisms of the Roman exercise of primacy when it is precisely that exercise which is the only hope for a future Christian West in the face of the dual onslaughts of secular immorality/materialism and the encroachment of Islam. To witness the utter inadequacy of Canterbury on both counts is to see the kind of papal “primacy” which the Orthodox would eagerly foist upon the Catholic Church. The adoption by Rome of the worst of the East’s eccesiological problems cannot be the solution to Christian disunity. The decimation of Christianity’s largest body might please the Orthodox for a time, but in the end, even they would regret it.
As I do not believe in coincidence but providence, so I cannot help but read the signs of the times. I suspect, but could never prove, that the Holy Spirit has held off the implosion of Anglicanism to just this time, so that Rome will not be conjured by hope of reunification with the Orthodox into giving up her ancient and very necessary prerogatives.
Of course I could be wrong….
Fr. J., I did not understand Met. Kallistos to say that papal infallibility was acceptable (nor did I say that); only that it might be less of a sticking point than the issue of papal primacy. Not to put too fine a point on it, and certainly with all due respect, but I might suggest that one sees less of an internal contradiction in what he says when one actually deals with what he said, not what one thinks he meant.
My wrap-up of days 2 & 3 has just been posted, by the way: http://leitourgeia.wordpress.com Day 4 is coming.
Richard
Dr. Tighe,
“Rome has the only credible claim to universal primacy because it possesses the tombs of SS Peter & Paul.”
This is not an acceptable basis of the papal claim to universal primacy if one accepts the Vatican I definitions. The dual apostolic founding of the Roman see is also an insufficient basis; the normative teaching is that the Apostle Peter received unique powers immediately from Christ Himself & that each bishop of Rome inherits these powers:
“1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.”
“4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.”
“but I might suggest that one sees less of an internal contradiction in what he says when one actually deals with what he said, not what one thinks he meant.”
I didn’t say Met. K. found papal infallibility as it stands acceptable either.
“With all due respect” usually means an insult is coming. Let’s spare each other that. If I misread something or mis-heard something, it is enough to just say so. After all, I was not asserting anything, but asking for some help at clarification.
Fr. J.: Agreed, let’s spare each other that; I certainly did not intend an insult. What I will say is that I am finding many of the responses here to be interpreting various points of these talks in a rather, shall we say, aggressive manner; this is certainly not in keeping with either the spirit of the conference or, I believe, the spirit of this particular forum.
Richard
Even Bp. Hilarion acknowledged that primacy is clearly Rome’s, but it is a question of what that means.
If it means no real authority, then it is an entirely neutered and emasculated concept of primacy–one that would have been completely unintelligible to Jesus and the Apostles.
Onc again, I must beg people to read Father Stanley Jaki’s little monograph [i]The Keys of the Kingdom.[/i] It would clarify so much! ;)
Rome has the only credible claim to universal primacy because it possesses the tombs of SS Peter & Paul — but also that as presently exercised it is totally unacceptable to the Orthodox.
I hope and pray that Fr. Reardon comes to see the absurdity of such a position.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His promises do not change. If He established the Petrine primacy (as Fr. Reardon seems implicitly to concede), then it is what it is, and nothing can change that. After all, Jesus Himself said that the Church He would build on the Rock of Peter would never fall to the assaults of “the Gates of Hell.” If He meant that, then ISTM it’s a no-brainer: One does not quibble about what one personally likes or dislikes about the present Roman See. Rather, one submits to the Will of Jesus Christ, Who founded only One Church–a Church that cannot be separated from the Petrine office, as both Scripture and Tradition amply attest.
I cannot help adverting to the original argument of [i]Cathedra Unitatis[/i]: The burden is really not on Catholics to explain how the fully grown mustard tree of today’s papacy has the same DNA as the primitive Petrine “seed.” Rather, the burden is on our Orthodox brethren to explain how the copious testimony of both Scripture and Patristic Tradition to Petrine jurisdictional primacy can be squared with contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology–an ecclesiology which, contra Our Lord Himself, effectively leaves Peter out of the picture altogether.
Neo-Chalcedonian: The Scriptural basis for the papacy which you correctly cite does indeed explain why the successors of Peter possess universal jurisdictional primacy. But it does not explain why this Petrine primacy is associated with the city of Rome (or, rather, with Vatican City). I believe Dr. Tighe’s statement related to this latter point–not to the Petrine primacy per se but to the Roman primacy. Does that make any sense? ;)
I will only note that from an Orthodox perspective, it is by no means true that Peter is left out of the picture; it is simply a different understanding of what that means. Cyprian of Carthage is clear enough in what he says about the chair of Peter and its relationship to the episcopate, but he also says that “the episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop’s share gives him a right to, and a responsibility for, the whole.” He further notes that “the rest of the apostles were exactly what Peter was; they were endowed with an equal share of office and power”.
The 12th century debate between Anselm of Havelberg and Nicetas of Nicomedia in Constantinople is helpful here — Nicetas, as quoted by Anselm:
“I do not deny the primacy of the Roman Church…nor do I reject it, since indeed we read in our ancient histories that…Rome, the most distinguished see, was the imperial capital, with the result that she was called the first see. To her there was an appeal in doubtful ecclesiastical cases, and to her judgment were submitted those matters which were not covered by clear rules. Nevertheless the Roman pontiff was not called ‘the prince of priests’ or ‘the supreme priest’ or anything of the kind, but simply the bishop of the first see.”
Nicetas continues:
“Although we do not disagree with the Roman Church in the profession of the same catholic faith, nevertheless because we do not celebrate councils with her in these times how shall we accept her decrees, which are drawn up without seeking our advice, or rather, without consulting us at all? For if the Roman pontiff, taking his seat on the lofty throne of his glory, should wish to thunder at us, and, as it were, hurl down his mandates from on high, and without taking counsel with us but relying on his own discretion should wish at his own arbitrary pleasure to judge matters concerning us and our churches, or rather, to rule over us, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of fatherhood could this be? Who could ever bear this with equanimity? Indeed in that case we could rightly be said to be true slaves, and so we would be.”
Richard
Diane,
“But it does not explain why this Petrine primacy is associated with the city of Rome (or, rather, with Vatican City).”
No one fact about Rome (Peter’s founding of the episcopate there, the relics, etc.) explains why this is the case. The logic of the argument, as I understand it, is that is that once you have established that Christ willed the Petrine office to exist & exercise its authority over the Church unto the Second Coming that the historical & Patristic evidence available will render it plain that it was always believed to be Rome, as opposed to Antioch. I do not believe the exegetical or the consequent historical argument to be sound, but that is neither here nor there for the time being.
Neo, you may not accept for whatever reason the overwhelming patristic record relating the Petrine ministry to the See of Rome, neither may you accept that all current authorities East and West regard Rome as the see bearing the Petrine ministry, but as you say, your opinion is neither here nor there.
Eirenikon Editor:
The same point was made in Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II: clearly, the exercise of the Primacy has been a stumbling-block to separated Christians in the past.
With due respect to yourself and the late Pope, it is not merely the “exercise” of the Primacy that is a stumblingblock, it is the entire Roman doctrinal substructure which has determined how the primacy is exercised. To continue to maintain that the stumblingblock can be removed without changing the dogma is, in my opinion, naive at best. Joe
Father J:
The papacy’s universal jurisdiction is precisely what has saved the Catholic Church from the errors of Gallicanism and Americanism (which reared its head following each of the Vatican councils). Imagine what American Catholicism would look like if Americans had been choosing their own bishops over the past 30 years (since JPII)! Horror of horrors, we would look just like the Episcopal Church and Benedict would be in Rowan Williams shoes with all the responsibility for running the ship and none of the authority to do so.
It was the very overcentralization and overdependence on Roman juridical and theoligical pronouncements in the preVat II western church that atrophied the liturgical, scriptural and patristic foundations of the church, making it susceptible to all the abuses and silliness that followed Vat II. Granted that a central authority with universal jurisidiction can sometimes come in handy in temporarily restoring doctrinal and liturgical “orthodoxy”, in the long run only a solid grounding in the Spirit of Truth, through an adherence to Tradition and the Fathers, can insure true orthodoxy. Joe
One might do worse than to read *The Church in Rome in the First Century* by George Edmundson (London, 1913), which has just been republished by Wipf & Stock in Eugene, Oregon. Edmundson (1848-1930) was a Church of England clergyman, sometime fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford, and a polymath who wrote on such diverse subjects as the history of the Netherlands, the exploration of the Amazon basin and the poetry of John Milton. This book of his, which languished unread and largely unreviewed for nearly 60 years after its publication (despite its being, as it is subtitled, “The Bampton Lectures for 1913”), was praised unstintingly by J. A. T. Robinson in his *Redating the New Testament* (1977).
Edmundson gives good reasons for dating the Epistle of Clement to the year 70 AD rather than to the 90s; he also gives good reasons that Peter went to Rome to found, or at least organize, the Roman Church, years before he ever set foot in Antioch.
FYI: I just posted my write-up of day 4 — http://leitourgeia.wordress.com.
Richard
Fr J.
I make entirely my own Joe’s point about the (only) apparent benefits of cetralism. He makes the point with admirable succinctness and clarity. I would only add that the bishops who made such a mess of implementing Vatican II were apointed by Rome, mostly in the balmy days of the 1950s, when what was required was a safe pair of hands, to be trusted to not rock the boat, and adminsutrative competence rather than inspiring leadership skills. In the end, the boat they dared not rock was that of secularism triumphant within the Church. In France, Pius XII in the post war years delivered up the whole episcopate to men who quickly became the semi-willing instrumnts of a disastrous marxist takeover of the Catholic structures.
In fact, I share your fear of independent episcopates in the face of the current situation. But fear is a poor counsellor. There is in fact no reason to suppose that the current parlous internal situation of Latin Catholicism will obtain in the medium and long term. In fact secularism within the Church is fast running out of steam. I think it will be killed off pretty soon by the tyrannical persecuting tendancies of militant secularism, which will kill off it’s useful idiots within the Church, finding them to be not so useful after all. All the evidence shows that those in the upcoming generation who choose to be Christians after all will see no point in the watered-down version. One day, when the dust has settled, ther may be scope for the kind of decentralisation I am proposing.
Joe, you are a man after my own heart. It feels lonely in the Church right now being opposed equally to authoritarianism and to vacuous liberalism at the same time. Are we prophets or cranks? Either way, we need to stick together…
Dr. Tighe: Do you know how one can obtain the book you cite? Would Amazon have it? Thanks!
Fr. Paul: Surely you would not say that the present pope exercises an authoritarian primacy? If he does, then why is Cardinal Mahony still in office? ;)
As per usual, no mention of why Rome or Constantinople had any “primacy” in the first place. The only reason either had standing in the church is because they were the residence of the emperor. Do remember that Orthodoxy teaches that the secular and spiritual powers act in concert, in “symphonia” (we are not Romans who arrogantly assume that the spiritual power has the right to judge the temporal ruler!). All other reasons are theological rationalisations for the political reality of the time.
Coventry is a joke. It had no part in the current discussion at all, for it is nothing but a set of liturgical Protestants with pretty vestments. In short, this was the usual set of leftist-leaning intellectuals with no grounding in the lived church. Having done a good amount of translation from Russian to English, I can state that all of the above is marginal to the actual contemporary Orthodox thought. I would advise you to read Fr Vsevolod Chaplin, Deacon Andrei Kuraev, Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov, or Professor Aleksei Osipov of the MDA for a more balanced and grounded view of our theology.
In any case, Deacon Andrei preaches to more people at one rock concert than this “conference” shall ever reach. Thank God for that… sanity does prevail.
Vara
PS
How many of you speak Russian? Without it, you are cut off from most of the contemporary ferment in Orthodox thought. I have found nothing in English that is worthwhile (especially from SVS, in particular).
Diane,
Just yesterday I discovered that it has just been republished by Wipf & Stock in Eugene, Oregon. I think that you will find it available through http://www.abebooks.com, where it can be bought from Windows Booksellers, the Eugene, OR outlet of Wipf & Stock — even though, curiously, it does not appear on the online Wipf & Stock catalogue:
http://wipfandstock.com/wipf_and_stock
But cf.:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=edmundson&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&sortby=2&sts=t&tn=church+in+rome&x=20&y=8
“The only reason either had standing in the church is because they were the residence of the emperor.”
Sez you, but rational folk will require proof, not unqualified assertion. And, if you read the long article posted above on “The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy” you will see that Leo the Great would have agreed, but have gone on to say that “the Fathers” in this case were SS Peter & Paul, and that their giving “the primacy” to Rome was a perpetual and irrevocable gift.
It is true, though, that Constantinople’s would-be primatial equality with Rome had no better standing than its imperial status and Canon 28 of Chalcedon, as the story of its purported founding by St, Andrew “the protoclete” had yet to be forged in the Fifth Century.
01varvara: You seem to be heavily implying, if not outright stating, that if it ain’t modern Russian thought, it ain’t Orthodox. One might even simplify this even further — if it ain’t Russian, it ain’t Orthodox.
I’d be curious to hear you expand/clarify.
Richard
Dear Varvara:
Y’all are more than welcome to “symphonia,” thank you very much. I’d rather be under the most despotic pope than at the mercy of Basil II a/k/a the Bulgar Slayer, the subject of my husband’s doctoral dissertation. ;)
In any case, Deacon Andrei preaches to more people at one rock concert than this “conference” shall ever reach.
Yes, and the attendants at just one of the recent U.S papal Masses outnumbered the entire membership roll of the OCA. Infer from that what you will. :D
God bless,
Diane
Vara,
You are welcome to comment here, but I would ask that you be a bit more respectful, especially towards your Orthodox co-religionists.
OH, BTW–Dr. Tighe, thanks so much for the links. (Sorry for ungraciously late thanks…I was kind of distracted by Vara’s post, LOL.)
BTW, in case anyone had any doubts (which I doubt anyone does ;)), I strongly disagree with Joe (and mildly with Father Paul). I strongly agree with Fr. J, who, IMHO, has a much more informed take on the papacy than Joe does. I also agree with Dr. Tighe, who knows more about Church history than all of us put together and cubed.
OK, now that we’ve clarified all that….
God bless,
Diane
Re: #14,
Fr. J, It was my little joke. I began to say, deliberately, “Amalekite” (think “Uniate”) and then, equally deliberately, “Ukrainian Catholic.” Fr. Reardon, at least, who was sitting next to be, got the point and began to chuckle, but I’m not sure that anyone else did.
Btw, on a largely (but not totally) different subject, you might ponder this sad matter
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/06/alert-3rd-vatican-council-announced/#comments
noting especially the last comment (#38) on the comment thread.
Fr. Paul:
I would only add that the bishops who made such a mess of implementing Vatican II were apointed by Rome, mostly in the balmy days of the 1950s, when what was required was a safe pair of hands, to be trusted to not rock the boat, and adminsutrative competence rather than inspiring leadership skills. In the end, the boat they dared not rock was that of secularism triumphant within the Church.
I beg to differ with your history. First, the problems that arose in the wake of Vatican II were not actually caused by Vatican II but by a whole variety of social factors, not the least of which was the cultural revolution of the late 60’s which undermined the Christian foundations of Western civilization: authority, morality, government and church. This revolution was not exclusive to the Catholic Church but was society wide among the under 30 generation of the period (the Boomers).
Furthermore, the bishops which were most liberal were the famous Jean Jadot appointments under Paul VI, not those appointed by Pius XII nor John XXIII. Jadot’s bishops include: Bishop Walter Sullivan of Richmond, Va., Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, and Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles.
Joe:
It was the very overcentralization and overdependence on Roman juridical and theoligical pronouncements in the preVat II western church that atrophied the liturgical, scriptural and patristic foundations of the church, making it susceptible to all the abuses and silliness that followed Vat II.
The abuses and silliness following Vatican II I have addressed above but will add that they are easily traceable to the extra-ecclesial counter-cultural movement, the most obvious link being the “folk mass.”
But the consequences of the breakdown of central authority are not only found in the post-Conciliar West. As I have said before, the ethnocentric and even xenophobic quality of Orthodoxy is a direct result of its ecclesiastical nationalism resulting from national patriarchates. This explains to a major degree the near absence of an evangelizing spirit among the Orthodox which condemns them to an ever dwindling number in the new world despite inflated numbers previously discussed on this blog. Ecclesiastical nationalism is a result of church governance structure which does not admit outside perspectives which contextualize national aspirations such as in present and former day Russia. Having an ecclesiastical government that is beyond civil influence is precisely the purpose of the independent Vatican city-state.
So, the universal jurisdiction of Rome has many benefits besides its ability to correct the present vicissitudes of post conciliar America and post revolutionary France. It is the resolution to the various ills of autocephalous polyarchy. Besides being practical from all manner of perspectives, it is justifiable from scripture and tradition.
—
Perhaps some of this conversation ought to move to the combox for the article: “The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy”
Diane
no I was not saying that the present Pope is authoritarian! He is not. I was saying something like :”many people would like him to be”! Please don’t read things into what I write.
Fr Joe
The same plea might be addressed to you! I did not say, and I do not think that Vatican II was the cause of the post-Conciliar invasion of secularism in the Church. I did say (and I stand by what I said) that it was aided and abetted by the weakness of Rome-appointed bishops. Whether they were appointed by Pius XII or Paul VI is only of secondary importance; my main point is that Roman centralism does not necessarily work for the good. But in fact you seem to have overlooked the point that my remarks about Pius XII’s role concerned only the French episcopate. I am a big admirer of America (at a time when that is not always a popular opinion over here in Europe) but I there are four and a half other continents in the Catholic world!
Father Paul: I was being facetious…well, kind of. ;)
Father J:
So, the universal jurisdiction of Rome has many benefits besides its ability to correct the present vicissitudes of post conciliar America and post revolutionary France.
Amen! Amen and amen. Joe’s extremely abbreviated list of the benefits of papal authority did not even begin to do justice to the complex, multifaceted reality.
Father Paul: I think most of us would agree that the papal appointment of bishops is not part of the esse of the papacy; therefore, this particular praxis could be changed. But I’m not altogether sure I’d want it to be, at least here in the West. In the East, in a reunited Church–well, that’s a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish. But in the West…well, like Father J, I cringe to think what we Americans would come up with if we chose our own bishops. I-yi-yi! Let’s go even go there, LOL.
Perhaps some of this conversation ought to move to the combox for the article: “The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy”
Very good idea, Fr J. Things have gotten a little out of hand over here. Wasn’t there an old law of the Pontificator’s, to the effect that Orthodox-Catholic blog discussions that have gone over 50 comments are no longer helpful or illuminating … something to that effect. :-)
Comments are closed on this post.
[…] thanks to all of you who visited because of Eirenikon’s links to my Fellowship of Ss. Alban and Sergius write-ups; I hope you stay for […]