What About the Roman Primacy? Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos

This paper was presented as a talk to the Theological Students Asso- ciation of the School of Religious Studies at The Catholic Univeristy of America, Washington, DC in September 1997. The School has taken a recent interest in ecumenical issues, co-sponsors the Orientale Lumen Conferences with Eastern Churches Journal, and is hosting several speakers during the 1997-98 school year on the topic of ecumenical dialogue.

The most important difficulty between the Catholics and the Orthodox is the question of the basis, the significance, and the practical exercise of the "universal primacy" of the Bishop of Rome. In his encyclical letter Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul 11 has invited the Orthodox, and indeed all Christians, to join him in exploring this primacy and considering how it may best be exercised1 so as to build up the unity of the Church rather than being a stumbling-block to that unity.

Orthodox Primacy

The year 1204, when the Fourth Crusade seized Constantinople and enthroned a "Latin ~atriarch,"~ is a symbolic moment of a spiritual break between the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople; eventually almost3 all the Byzantine East stood with Constantinople and either broke communion with Rome or lost that communion "inadvertently," as it were4 Despite sporadic efforts to present an Orthodox ecclesiology with no universal primacy at all, the

[I] John Paul II, Ut Unwn Sint, $0 94-96.

[2] Whom the Pope appointed with no pretense of a synodal election.

[3] Almost, but not quite. There were always a few Byzantine Churches which remained with Rome, including particularly the Monastery at Grottaferrata, which will celebrate its millennium in 2007, and the Greeks of Calabria and Sicily.

[4] The Church of Kiev remained in communion with both the Elder Rome and the

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 Y-w-m.

practical exigencies of life demanded some form of central authority. In theory and in practice, these surrogates for the Roman primacy developed at various times.

1. The Emperor at Constantinople Perhaps the Emperor was the most successful surrogate. The

Roman Emperor (and to the very last, to that terrible twenty-ninth of May 1453 when Blessed Constantine XI1 died defending the walls of

5 Constantinople, the Emperor at Constantinople always remained the oma an ~ m ~ e r o r ~ ) held his position by a succession of the same vintage as the papacy; for centuries the Emperor had confirmed papal elections. The Emperor had summoned and sponsored the Seven Ecumenical councils? So long as the Emperor was Orthodox in Faith, even the Popes recognized that he enjoyed great, though not precisely defined, legal authority in matters which later generations would consider purely ecclesiastical. However, despite strenuous efforts, the Roman Emperors never succeeded in imposing their own would-be dogmas on the Church.

Frequently people who are unfamiliar with the history of the Christian Roman Empire accuse the Church of allowing the Emperors to dictate the doctrines of the Faith. The ghost of Arius would find that bitterly amusing, and so would other famous heretics, who sometimes gained the Imperial eagles only to discover that while the Church was often subservient to the Emperor in administrative matters, when it

New Rome until 1596; the Church of Antioch did the same until 1724.

[5] Cf. Sir Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople.

[6] Even today, as the twentieth century is drawing to a close and the Emperors have been gone for more than five hundred years, the remaining Greeks of Constantinople still proudly call themselves the Romaoi, and the Orthodox of Romania, Turkey, and the Arab States still call themselves Romans.

[7] The claim in present day Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic canon law (John Paul 11, Codex Iuris Canonici, 1983, 8 338; Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 5 5 1 ) that only the "Roman Pontiff' can convoke an ecumenical council and determine its agenda has no basis in the first millennium.

-- What About the Roman Primacy? ----1- "W"* x % m % u w N w m - . m - w m \ \ a nxr

came to the Orthodox Faith the witness of the martyrs and the monks invariably triumphed. Each time we review the history of such imperial efforts to impose some heresy on the Church, we are unable to close our eyes to the r6le of the Popes of Rome in defending the Orthodox

8 faith: against the Arians, against the Monophysites, against the Mono- 9 thelites, against the Iconoclasts, and so on.

As a surrogate primate of the Church, the Roman Emperor had, shall we say, a "long reign," if I may be forgiven a play on words. As late as the end of the fourteenth century, when the actual territory of the Empire was reduced to Constantinople itself, a few surrounding vil- lages, and some holdings in the Morea, and the Emperor was a vassal of the Sultan, the Orthodox believed that the Roman Emperor was "that King whom Saint Paul commands us to honor,"1° and the Emperor's name was commemorated in the Divine Liturgy by all the Orthodox, wherever they might be.'' Nevertheless all worldly empires eventually come to an end. The twenty-ninth of ~a~~~ is still a day of sorrow for the Orthodox, but the Roman Emperor is not coming back.

2. The Sultan After the Fall of Constantinople the Sultan considered himself

the heir of the Roman Emperor, and made every effort to act the part with regard to the Orthodox Church. Sultan Mehmet 11, the Conqueror, appointed the new Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Sultan's suc- cessor retained the power of appointment and deposition of the Ecu- menical Patriarch and other Church officials even in the early twentieth

[8] Despite the lapse of Liberius.

[9] Despite the lapse of the lamentable Honorius.

[lo] Letter of the Ecumenical Patriarch to the Grand Duke of Moscow.

[l 11 Latins who consider the Orthodox anachronistic, backward, and behind the times might remember that until the nineteen-fifties the Missale Romanum included special prayers for the Roman Emperor, particularly at the Easter Vigil.

1121 Constantinople fell to the Turks on 29 May 1453.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 ~ , w ~ ~ ~ , ~ , m ~ " ~ ~ \ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ \ % , % m mv%,,-%, %-%- P

century. Nobody ever attempted to justify this theologically, but since the Ottoman Empire came to include a large share of Orthodox territo- ries from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries, the force of custom, combined with state power, gave the Sultan a power in Orthodox administrative matters that had to be reckoned with.

The Sultan was, of course, not a Christian, and very few Sultans had any direct interest in Christian doctrines; I am not aware of any effort by any Sultan to interfere in Orthodox dogmas. The Sultans were anxious to use the Orthodox Church to assist in controlling the Ortho- dox population of the Ottoman Empire, and the Sultans were careful to impede any contacts between the Orthodox Church and the Pope of ~ o m e . l3 The Sultans were always willing to use the Orthodox Church as what modern businessmen call a "cash cow,"14 a source of ready money.

For these reasons, the Sultans sought to prevent divisions within the Orthodox Church - such divisions would have provided a rallying point against Ottoman domination of the Orthodox church." As a result, internal Orthodox divisions in and around the Ottoman Empire only manifested themselves in the nineteenth century, as one after another Orthodox countries gained civil liberation from the Sul- tans and demanded ecclesiastical independence as well - autocephuly, as it is termed in Orthodox ecclesiology. The Ecumenical Patriarchs tried strongly to resist these demands for autocephaly,16 but one after another Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and even Greece obtained recogni- tion as autocephalous Churches. Few Orthodox realized it at the time,

[I31 As the Ottoman Empire aged, grew stagnant, and shrank, this became much less successful.

[I41 The modem businessmen may have inherited this term from the Ottomans, who often referred to the Christians as the "royal cattle" of the Sultan.

[ I 51 On the other hand, the Sultans discouraged efforts at reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox.

[16] Particularly at the Synod of 1872, which condemned phyletism as a heresy. The Synod was only too correct.

What About the Roman PrimacQ - - P - m ' - w - m

but this development was to bear bitter fruit for the Orthodox Church

- in the twentieth century.

, The Ottoman Empire came to an end, and the Sultan could no longer provide any sort of "primacy" for the Orthodox Church. The Sultan and his family have vanished from history, and no Orthodox are interested in restoring them. 17

3. The Tsar of Russia After the Fall of Constantinople, the Russian Tsar Ivan I11

married a Byzantine princess, and soon the Tsars of Moscow developed the ambition to become the new universal Christian Emperor, on the model of the Roman ~ m ~ e r 0 r . l ~ The attempt never succeeded; unlike the Roman Emperor, the Tsar was closely bound with a particular culture and with the particular national Russian agenda. Moreover, the Tsar lost his credibility with many Orthodox by abolishing the Moscow Patriarchate in 1720 and replacing it with a "Holy Governing Synod" which was a blatant instrument for government control of the Church.

4. The Commissars The Communists, of course, were not Christians. As militant

anti-theists, their main goal was to abolish religion. But they did want to control the Orthodox Church, and after World War I1 they made serious efforts to extend that control beyond the geographic limits of Soviet power. Measured against the two thousand years of Christian history, the Communist attempt did not last long - only a few decades -and there is certainly no one who would suggest reviving Communist control of the Church now.

[17] Even the minuscule and ephemeral '"Turkish Orthodox Church" takes its inspiration from Attatiirk, not from the Ottomans.

[I 81 An unplanned consequence of this ambition was the internal schism in the Russian Orthodox Church over ritual matters in the seventeenth century; the "Old-Ritualists" (often miscalled "Old Believers") remain to this day.

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 4 No. 3 Y* x, 2 rVXY *yj*yj, arn %-,%- \."\"% wwm3da,,, *i ;,. % X *

5. The Patriarch of Moscow From its establishment in 1590, the Moscow Patriarchate has

more-or-less openly sought to replace Rome as the first episcopal see. There has never been an ecclesiological basis for this claim, but since the Russian Church has the largest number of Orthodox faithful, and since the Moscow Patriarchate has been allied to the large and powerful Russian state, Moscow has sometimes been able to impose her will on other Local Orthodox Churches. The Patriarchs of Moscow have used this power in the direct interest of the Russian State, and often against the actual interest of the other Local Churches. As a result, almost nobody in the Orthodox world apart from the Moscow Patriarchate itself would support Moscow's primatial pretensions.

6. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople As the Bishop of New Rome, the imperial capital of the Roman

Emperor, the city which for centuries was far and away the most important city in the Christian world, the Ecumenical Patriarch came to acquire enormous influence in the life of the Orthodox Church. For long periods of time, during the Crusades and later during the Muslim conquests, the Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusa- lem became resident prelates at the Patriarchal Court in Constantinople, and the Ecumenical Patriarch could even appoint candidates to be Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. During the heyday of the Ottoman Empire, the Ecumenical Patriarchate increased the territory where it exercised effective jurisdiction, controlling the Or- thodox in Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia.

But two flaws in the attempted universal primacy of the Ecu- menical Patriarchate slowly emerged. First, and more important, this primay rested almost exclusively on the "principle of accommoda- tion," the notion that ecclesiastical structures follow civil structures. Historically, the principle of accommodation has its place in the canoni-

[ I 91 See Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, Fordham University Press, New York, 1966 (reprinted 1979), chapter 1 'The Principle of Accommodation."

What About the Roman P r i m a g -*mw

cal tradition: it is normal that an important diocesan center should be an important city. But even Constantinople itself has always realized that this basis is too weak for a universal primacy, and has tried to develo a more convincing ecclesiological basis for Constantinople's & claim. As sometimes articulated, that claim would rest on the theory that as the Bishop of Rome does not exercise his primacy within the Orthodox Pentarchy, the "second of the Pentarchy derives the right to exercise the functions which should belong to the Bishop of ~ o m e . ~ l However, very few Orthodox other than those who actually belong to the Ecumenical Patriarchate are pre ared to concede such an authority to the Phanar in any practical way. 23

Much of the reason for this unwillingness to recognize such a function in the Phanar has to do with the second flaw in Constanti- nople's primacy: the close alliance of the Phanar with the Greek national aspirations, often against the interests of other

[20] For a discussion of the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, from a Constantinopolitan point of view, see Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church (Thessalonica: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, 1976). Lewis J. Patsavos, "The Primacy of the See of Constantinople in Theory and Practice" in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 37 (1992): 1-4 offers a shorter and more recent discussion.

[21] Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, Fordham University Press 1966, reprinted 1979, p. 159, indicates that this claim arose in the thirteenth century, during the Crusader occupation of Constantinople.

[22] Father John Meyendorff attempted to defend the universal primacy of Constantinople in a paper originally titled "The Ecumenical Patriarch, Seen in the Light of Orthodox Ecclesiology and History" at the Third International Congress of Orthodox Theologians, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1978, published in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 24 (1979), pp. 227-244, and reprinted with the title "The Ecumenical Patriarchate, Yesterday and Today" in John Meyendorff, The Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1982, pp. 235-255.

[23] Cf. Sir Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence, Cambridge 1968.

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 4 No. 3 u<\,*\- < ~ % < A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n w m r w m r % w ~ - C ~ * k A ~ ~ \ \ < ~ ~ s ' ~ \ ~ ~ -BB

The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is still the Eth- narch of the Greeks, and exercises serious authority over the Orthodox Greek diaspora around the world. Occasionally the Ecumenical Patri- arch is successful in mediating problems elsewhere in the Orthodox world. But this only succeeds when the contending parties agree, voluntarily, to accept the mediation of Constantinople; that acceptance is relatively rare. As the twentieth century draws to a close, the contin- ued presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople is seriously endangered, because the number of Orthodox Greeks remaining in the city is rapidly dwindling to the vanishing point. Only Turkish citizens may hold office in the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, and every year it becomes more difficult to find suitable candidates. Ironi- cally, one of the strongest supports of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the Papacy, which continues to lend its moral pressure to the efforts to maintain the Phanar in Istanbul.

In the aftermath of World War I, two catastrophes hit the Orthodox Church one after the other: the Russian Revolution, which brought the Communists to power, and the Greek-Turkish War, which resulted in the expulsion of most of the Orthodox from Turkey. Either of these would have shaken the Orthodox equilibrium; the combination has produced an enduring crisis in Orthodox ecclesiology and a seem- ingly endless inability for the Orthodox to act univocally. Orthodox opposed to the Roman primacy tried to excuse the Orthodox chaos of the twentieth century by blaming it on the Communists. But the Communists are gone for nearly a decade, and the situation is becoming worse rather than better.

Besides the collapse of the Greek community in Turkey and the persecution of the Orthodox in the Communist countries, another factor has increased the sense of urgency: the inability of the Orthodox Church to give either a theoretical or a concrete solution to the problem of the Orthodox diaspora. Eastern Orthodoxy in the United States is made up of about twenty "jurisdictions," all existing in the same territory and asserting jurisdiction on various bases. In terms of either canon law or sound ecclesiology, this is ludicrous: the principle of the unity of the episcopate based on the presence of one bishop in one city is fundamental. Everyone "agrees" with this principle, and no one is able to make this principle effective. To make matters infinitely worse,

-%-- What About the Roman Primacy?

- - - P " l S , " ~ % % rmnm,

these "jurisdictions" do not all maintain Eucharistic communion with one another. For the Orthodox Church, which proudly announces her Eucharistic ecclesiology, such a situation is unbearable.

Throughout the twentieth century the long-dormant issue of "universal primacy" has been confronting the Eastern Orthodox Church. Nearly forty years ago, Father Alexander Schmemann wrote that:

Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior Church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimo- nies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, how- ever, that if Roman historians and theologims have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history, an evaIuation free from polerni- cal or apologetic exaggerations. Such study will certainly reveal that the essence and purpose of this primacy is to express and preserve the unity of the Church in faith and life; to express and preserve the unanimity of all Churches; to keep them from isolating themselves into ecclesiastical provincialism, loosing the Catholic ties, separating themselves from the unity of life. It means ultimately to assume the care, the solicitude of the Churches so that each one of them can abide in that fullness which is always the whole catholic tradition and not any part of it.24

[24] Schmemann, "The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology," 64-65. Also cited in John Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter, 163-64.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 < ~ > . X ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ ~ > A , ~ * ~ , , ~ * ~ ~ ~ % . . ~ , ~ \ % ~ \ , % > ~ ~ , ~ W ~ , ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' . , ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ \ < ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ \ * * * Y ~ ~ X h ~

In 1971, the Patriarchate of Moscow gave "autocephaly" to one of the Russian Orthodox factions25 in the United States. This group then re-named itself "the Orthodox Church in America" and asserted its claim to be "the" Local Orthodox Church in this country, even though an absolute majority of the Orthodox faithful and the Orthodox parishes in this country had never belonged to it, and most of the Orthodox Local Churches in the traditionally Orthodox countries did not and do not recognize this "autocephaly." For Orthodox ecclesiologists, the result- ing confusion is not merely unbearable, it is unthinkable. But there is no end in sight.

In 1976, Father John Meyendorff, Professor (and later Dean) of Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary observed that the Church needs

institutional forms that would be a guarantee and a true expres- sion of the Church's universal dimension. Three levels [are] always necessary, and each must always penetrate the other in a reciprocal way if the Church is to take form in all its fullness. The first level: the local church is true Church in the celebration of the Eucharist. So the Church must also implicate and take form in the regional division -cultural, national, social. But in the end the Church must also take form in the universal dimen- sion. Regionalism must also always be reconciled with univer- salism. This is the only way that we can be within the Church that was willed by the Lord and together we must all try to discover how these three dimensions can be reconciled. 26

[25] At the time there were three Russian Orthodox groups in the United States: the "Patriarchal Exarchate," belonging to Moscow; the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America," functioning independently of Moscow and actually involved in civil litigation with Moscow when Moscow suddenly bestowed autocephaly on this group, and the "Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia," in communion with neither of the other two, and in fact out of communion with most - but by no means all - of the Orthodox Local Churches in the traditional Orthodox homelands.

[26] From Ratzinger's summary of John Meyendorff's intervention during a symposium at the University of Graz, 1976. A slightly revised version of

What About the Roman Prima%: la m w%,-~w~,* ,~-~~~~m,~w-,~, **)-w -h *%-\*,we< el XW i rv nuaa? ax=> -- *

The question continues to become increasingly urgent. In 1978, Professor John H. Erickson of Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Theological

- Seminary wrote that:

internal needs have compelled the Orthodox to examine the meaning of primacy in the Church, and more concretely, the role of the patriarchate of Constantinople. In the nineteenth century, Orthodox responses to Vatican I could argue that the system of autocephalous churches - utterly independent yet united in faith - was an alternative to papalism. The weaknesses of this argument have become increasingly apparent. Like the pre-World War I system of sovereign nation states, on which in many respects it was modeled, the system of autocephalous churches has failed to meet the demands made on it in our tragic century. Yet there is no consensus on alternatives. While the patriarch of Constantinople is acknowledged by all as "first

, among equals," what this priority involves in the actual life of the Orthodox churches in our day is by no means clear. The line between legitimate primacy and "neo-papalism" has not been drawn. The result has been a series of confrontations. What is the status of the Church of Poland, the Church of Czechoslo- vakia, the "Paris exarchate," the Orthodox Church in America? What is the status of the so-called diaspora in general? And who is to determine these

A few decades ago, when people would express their shock and horror at the divisions among the Orthodox in the countries of our recent immigration, we were often told that it was all a trauma of the diaspora,

Meyendorff's paper appears in John Meyendorff, Living Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World, Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood: 1978; pp. 63-79, titled "Rome and Orthodoxy: Is 'Authority' Still the Issue?"

[27] John H. Erickson, The Challenge of Our Past, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991, pp. 174; cited passage in chapter 6, "Collegiality and Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology," p. 74. This paper was originally presented in 1978.

that eventually the Orthodox Churches in the traditional homelands would agree on a proper canonical solution to this problem, and that only the Communist control of the Orthodox Churches in Eastern Europe was delaying that agreement. After all, we were reminded, there are no multiple jurisdictions in Orthodox countries.

The Communists are no longer governing the Orthodox coun- tries. But instead of the Local Orthodox Churches in the Orthodox countries, now able to act in freedom, moving towards the long-prom- ised resolution of the canonical situation of the Orthodox in the dias- pora, the problems of the diaspora are coming home to roost in the traditionally Orthodox countries. There are two competing Orthodox Patriarchs in Bulgaria; there are three or four competing Orthodox jurisdictions, including two patriarchs, in Ukraine; there is an unrecog- nized "autocephalous" Church in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; there are splits over the calendar in Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania, and in Russia there are shifting groups of hierarchs opposed to the Moscow Patriarchate.

In 1992, almost on the eve of his death, Father John Meyendorff wrote that:

There has been no real improvement in the internal problems of the Orthodox world. It is obvious, therefore, that Orthodox theologians should not limit their study of scriptures and the early church to a negative critique of Roman ecclesiology. The unity of each local church, the unity in faith and discipline between local churches, both on the regional and universal level, are what they teach as expressions of true ecclesial communion. All forms of primacy are justifiable only as instru- ments to secure such communion. What permanent principles and positive models shall the contemporary Orthodox church follow, and are they to be found in the person of the apostle Peter? How is one to approach the problem of apostolic suc- cession?

A wise Italian Roman Catholic layman has recently made a relevant call to avoid 'ecumenical triumphalism' 'which wa- vers between steps so little [as] to resemble immobility and

What About the Roman Primacc w 7 - - -

such great and definite targets as to change themselves into an utopia'.28 Rome and Orthodoxy, whether or not they practice triumphalistic unionism, unavoidably define their ecclesiologi- cal positions - and even their internal problems - within the framework of the same scriptures and the same history of the first Christian millennium. This is the true meaning of the assertion that they are indeed 'sister-churches.' 29

In August 1993 Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, an Orthodox theologian of outstanding erudition, had this to say:

in an ecclesiology of communion, neither synodality nor pri- macy can be understood as implying structures or ministries standing above the ecclesial community or communities. Only by a structure or a ministry that would involve the community of each local Church can synodality and primacy be realities of communion.

"The model offered to us by the early Church with regard to the synodal structure can be extremely helpful. If we do not wish to copy it, we might at least seek inspiration from it. The substance of the model is to be found in Canon 34 of the so-called Apostolic Canons (belonging probably to the 4th century AD) which provides that in each region the heads of the local Churches - the bishops - must recognize one of them - the bishop of the capital city - as primus (protos) and do nothing without him. The latter however, must do nothing without these bishops so that, the canon concludes, the Triune God may be glorified.

1281 Giuseppe Alberigo, ed., Christian Unity. The Council of Ferrara-Florence, 1438/9-1989 (Leuven: University Press, 1991), pp. 217-234.

[29] John Meyendorff, "Introduction," in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York 1992, pp. 7-10; cited passage on p. 10.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 \ "j* i",,,," \ %->>5 ' \\%- ' * \ Y r n I ~ > \ , \ \ , ~ ~ \ B V I < \%-mw)* m%%%x-----%.i**

"The importance of this model lies in the fact that, through it, synodality and primacy are affirmed in such a way that the fullness and catholicity of each local Church, expressed through its bishop, is fully safeguarded. Could this not serve as a guide for the divided Christians in their way to visible unity? Without synodality, unity risks being sacrificed in favour of the local Church. But a synodality which suppresses the catholicity and integrity of the local Church can lead to ecclesiastical universalism. The same must be said about primacy. Can there be unity of the Church without primacy on the local, the regional and the universal level in an ecclesiology of cornrnun- ion? We believe not. For it is through a "head," some kind of "primus," that the "many," be it individual Christians or local Churches, can speak with one voice. But a "primus" must be part of a community; not a self-defined, but a truly relational ministry. Such a ministry can only act together with the heads of the rest of the local Churches whose consensus it would express. A primacy of this kind is both desirable and harmless in an ecclesiology of communion. 30

A great shock came in 1995, when Moscow broke communion with Constantinople over a dispute about the small Orthodox commu- nity in Estonia. Unbelievably, the Patriarchate of Moscow, with the largest number of faithful among the Eastern Orthodox Churches, broke communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, first in honor among the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The visible cause of this breach was the question of the Estonian community; the real reason was Moscow's desire to hold the primacy in the Orthodox world.

The Orthodox world was shocked and horrified, and demanded that the belligerents should make peace, at almost any price. So it was;

[30] Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, "The Church as Communion," Document no. 1 1 of the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order, World Council of Churches, Santiago de Compostela, 3-14 August 1993 (as yet unpublished).

* What About the Roman Prima* ~ m P = * - w a'=

Moscow and Constantinople "agreed to disagree" about Estonia, agree- ing in writing that each parish and each clergyman in Estonia could decide separately whether to belong to the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Moscow Patriarchate, and that each Patriarchate could maintain a diocesan bishop in Estonia. The Holy Fathers of the first millennium of the history of the Church must be aghast, even in the heavenly Kingdom, at the effrontery of suggesting that such a "solution," remi- niscent of sawing the baby in half, can be considered Orthodox. On the basis of this cobbled-together arrangement, communion was restored between Moscow and Constantinople. But the fact that the breach occurred in 1995 makes it possible to think that there is serious danger that such a breach will occur again.

One of my respected colleagues, Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, a hierarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Spalding Lecturer in Eastern Orthodox Studies at Oxford University, and one of the best-known Orthodox theologians in the world, was deeply shaken by the breach between Constantinople and ~ o s c o w . ~ ' Bishop Kallistos has written32 that this terrible event must cause the Orthodox to reconsider our attitude to the Roman Primacy. With that thought, I am in complete agreement. The Church needs the Roman Primacy.

The Roman Primacy

So "what about the primacy"? How would I propose to respond to Pope John Paul 11's invitation to suggest how the Roman Primacy may best be exercised, to be received as a blessing instead of a stumbling-block? What specifically might I have to say from an Eastern Orthodox position? Since 1987 I have been actively involved in the Catholic-Orthodox Theological Dialogue here in the United States, and

-

[3 11 Bishop Kallistos found himself in an intolerable situation. He shares the Orthodox church in Oxford with a Bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate. During the breach between Moscow and Constantinople, these two hierarchs were forbidden to serve together, or to admit each other to Holy Communion!

[32] Sobornost', 1996.

since 1992 I have participated in a bi-lateral dialogue between the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Ukrainian Greek- Catholic Church. Both of these dialogues have occasioned lengthy, thorough discussions of the issues surrounding the Roman Primacy, and have required me to engage in extensive reading on the subject. Tenta- tively, at least, I may have some thoughts to offer, though this cannot and will not be an exhaustive treatment of the subject.

Bishop Vsevolod with Archbishop Cacciavillan, Papal Pro-Nuncio to the United States

First, let me be clear. I am not suggesting that Eastern Ortho- doxy could possibly accept the manner in which the Roman Primacy currently functions, and specifically we certainly cannot and will not

What About the Roman P r i m x ? -,~--

accept the manner in which the Roman Primacy currently functions vis-8-vis the Eastern Catholic ~ h u r c h e s ; ~ as set forth in John Paul 11's Code of Canons of the Eastern and as one could discuss with regard to any number of practical matters. That certainly will not do. Instead, let me quote again my colleague, Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia:

instead of saying what Orthodox will not accept, let us ask in positive terms what the nature of Papal primacy is from an Orthodox viewpoint. Surely we Orthodox should be willing to assign to the Pope, in a re-united Christendom, not just an honorary seniority but an all-embracing apostolic care. We should be willing to assign to him the ri ht, not only to accept appeals from the whole Christian world,ei5 but even to take the initiative in seeking ways of healing when crisis and conflict arise anywhere among Christians. We envisage that on such occasions the Pope would act, not in isolation, but always in close co-operation with his brother bishops. We would wish to see his ministry spelt out in pastoral rather than juridical terms. He would encourage rather than compel, consult rather than coerce. 36

[33] See Ernst Christoph Suttner, Church Unity: Union or Uniatism? Catholic-Orthodox Ecumenical Perspectives, Centre for Indian and Inter-religious Studies (CIIS), Rome, and Dharmaram Publications, Bangalore, 1991.

[34] It is desirable to produce a code of Orthodox canon law, but the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is ecclesiologically "papist" in the extreme, both in its content and in its manner of promulgation. The very idea of the Bishop of Rome unilaterally promulgating such a "code of canons of the Eastern Churches" would have stunned the Eastern Churches in the first millennium.

[35] It is ironic that the Church of Constantinople gave its clearest recognition of the right of bishops to appeal to Rome at the Council of 861, which the medieval Western canonists did not recognize and eventually forgot altogether. Cf. Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, Fordham University Press, New York, 1966 (reprinted 1979), pp. 107-1 10.

[36] Timothy Ware [Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia], The Orthodox Church, Penguin

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 4 No. 3 I, --lw >,wn* I"- m, h % % ~ ~ d m & w b " w * ~ % % ~ ~ ~ m

Among both Orthodox and Catholics, there is a general agree- ment that so far as the Roman primacy is concerned, the first millen- nium is normative, more specifically the period from the fourth century to the eleventh century.37 Thus Joseph Ratzinger has stated that "Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primac than had been formulated and was lived in the first rnillen- nium."" The Orthodox must be prepared to acknowledge in the Bishop

Books, 1993, p. 3 16.

[37] "If there is, on one side and on the other, a sincere desire to work for a rapprochement and perhaps even for union, both must turn to the period of the fourth to the eleventh centuries. It is there that we can find a foundation for an agreement." Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, Fordham University Press, New York, 1966 (reprinted 1979), p. 167. See also Yves M. J. Congar, "Ecclesiological Awareness in the East and in the West from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century," in The Unity of the Churches of God.

[38] Joseph Ratzinger, 1976 lecture at the University of Graz, "Die okumenische Situation-Orthodoxie, Katholizismus und Reformation"; the original text appears in Theologische Prinzipienlehre: Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie (Miinchen: E. Wewel, 1982) 209. A French translation [which seems inaccurate at times] appears in Ratzinger's Les principes de la theologie catholique (Paris, 1985). Our citations follow Sister Mary Francis McCarthy's English translation of Ratzinger's address, which appears in his Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987) 193-237; the passage cited above is on p. 199. In the lecture Ratzinger went on to say:

When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope's visit to Phanar, designated him as "successor of Peter, one with Paul in name and manner, messenger of love, unity, and peace! ... the Bishop of Rome, the first in honor among us, 'the one who presides over charity,"' this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.

[Patriarch Athenagoras spoke in Greek. We cite his words directly from the English translation given in E. J. Stormon, SJ, Towards the Healing of Schism, the Sees of Rome and Constantinople (New York-Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987) 159.1

In the same 1976 lecture, Ratzinger reached this conclusion: "Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would

cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox

W-%-m-=% *% \P What About the Roman Primacy?

m ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ - * w m s x W ~ m m - , , ~ - ~ , , % \ ' rn

of Rome that primacy which he had during the first millennium, and Rome may not demand of us that we acknowledge some fundamental sort of authority that the Bishop of Rome did not have during the first m i l l e n n i ~ m . ~ ~ To quote Bishop Kallistos again:

We Orthodox need to take much more seriously the evidence for the Roman Primacy during the first millennium of Church history. The question to be asked is not "Does the Church need primacy?," for it is surely evident that the Church does. We should rather be asking "What kind of primacy does the Church need?" It is not the basic fact but the precise nature of it that we have to explore together. 40

Our decisive criterion is surely the faith and practice of the Church during the first ten centuries, when the Latin West and the Greek East were in full communion with each other. What- ever rights and powers within the Eastern Patriarchates the Pope possessed then, we Orthodox should be willing to ascribe to him now. On the Orthodox side, we cannot justly give him less than what he received when we were fully in communion;

4 1 but he cannot justly ask for more. .

and legitimate in the form she has always had." On 29 January 1993, Cardinal Ratzinger took part in an ecumenical

encounter at the Centro Evangelico di Cultura in Rome. Refemng directly to the passage we have quoted, Cardinal Ratzinger said: "I would like to repeat today what I said 20 years ago at a conference in Graz, Austria. I was speaking about the Orthodox Churches and I said that in the event of unity with Rome they would have to change very little, practically nothing, of their intrinsic content." The full text of Cardinal Ratzinger's comments on 29 January 1993 appears in 30 Days, No. 2, 1993, pp. 66-73 (same pagination for the Italian and English editions).

[39] Ratzinger, Zoghby, Kallistos, Bouyer et. al.

[40] Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, "Response to Bishop Basil," Logos 34 (1993), pp. 107-1 16, cited passage on p. 108.

[41] Ibid. p. 109.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 U K,\-x.-Y - % w % , i i * P m > ~ . % m % . . - P

In addition, we must all be prepared to learn some hard lessons from the second millennium. I have already suggested, I think, that the Orthodox must learn that the attempt to construct an ecclesiology and to function in practice without the Roman primacy leads either to an unacceptable dependence on a secular authority (even an anti-Christian secular authority) or to an intolerable chaos. Painful though it is, we need the primacy. But there are also lessons for Rome. The second millennium was scarcely begun before Rome began trying to construct an alternate ecclesiology, ignoring the Patriarchates of the East and the rights of the Local Churches and centralizing ever more and more authority in Rome itself. 42

"Primacy of Honor" or "Primacy of Jurisdiction"?

The Roman Primacy would be worthless if it were a mere "primacy of honor" in the sense of an empty title. As John Paul I1 correctly teaches, "with the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory, the Bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the Churches. For this reason, he is the first servant of unity.43 But at the end of the day, a Roman Primacy which sees the Bishop of Rome as the only person in the Church who has any rights is equally worthless.

Aprominent Roman Catholic theologian in Canada has written that:

Primacy has to be seen, not in terms of power, but in terms of service, a service which is impossible without the possession of a kind of power analogous to the one the bishop possesses to exercise his office. Exactly as episcopacy cannot be defined in terms of power, primacy cannot be defined in terms of

1421 Aristeides Papadakis, in collaboration with John Meyendorff, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood, NY: Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1994) offers a recent Orthodox analysis of the development of the papacy in the first half of the second millennium.

[43] John Paul 11, Ut Unwn Sint, 5 94.

<- What About the Roman Prim=

~ , . * ~ x - ~ w ~ * v n

jurisdiction. It is, thus, possible to discuss the problem of primacy without being entirely obsessed by the question of jurisdiction. It is also possible to challenge the way primacy is concretely exercised in the Catholic Church without affirming

as such, is 'against the oikonomia of the Holy

In France, the national dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church has published a series of studies on the Roman Primacy in the Communion of the On the issue of honor and authority, our French colleagues have cogently observed that:

Regardless of what form one employs to designate the prima- tial charge, the "honor" recognized therein implies real author- ity and responsibility. Surely the "primate" is inter pares but nevertheless he is truly prirnus.46 If this responsibility and this power should be regulated canonically, they should never be detached from the communion among the Churches and among the bishops which is the basis of the raison dJ&tre of "primacy" and its responsibility; (canonical) legislation should never be

[44] Father Jean M. R. Tillard, O.P., "Emerging Points of Consensus," in the Vienna Dialogue on Primacy First Study Seminar, Alfred Stirnemann 1 Gerhard Wilflinger, eds., Pro Oriente, Vienna: 1993; pp. 39-42; cited passage on p. 40.

[45] La Primaute' Romaine duns la Communion des kg1ises, Cornit6 Mixte Catholique-Orthodoxe en France, Presentation par le Metropolite Jerernie et Mgr Andre Quelen, Cerf, Paris 1991. We urgently need an English translation of this small book.

[46] As Bishop Basil of Stamford has written: "the Bishop of Rome is primus inter pares - and each of those words is necessary. The Bishop of Rome really is first, by virtue of the Roman primacy." "The Roman Primacy and the Church of Kiev," Logos vol. 34 (1993) Nos. 1-2,1993, pp. 70-106. Reference here is to pages 94-95.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 < -=--"s- -3 %%-?-h,\?m\m-,?L%,w

separated from the sacramental nature of the Church which legitimates and establishes this legislation?7

Our French colleagues have also called our attention to the 34th Apostolic canon, and commented on it:

Because the one, holy Church must be truly present in the local Church, and the communion of Churches must be truly built up as a communion of local Churches, there must be interde- pendence between him who is the "first" and the other bishops. The "formula" for this interdependence is given to us by the 34th Canon of the Apostles, widely recognized by the Churches in the period which we have considered [the first millennium]:

'It behooves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval; but instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus there will be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy

From this it follows that the dichotomy "primacy of honor" / "primacy of jurisdiction" appears in a new light, once Rome will take the second part of this canon truly into account, and define more exactly the nature and the content of her jurisdic- tion, and accept a differentiated exercise of that jurisdiction, depending on whether the case in point concerns the Churches of the West or the Universal Church, and also once the Ortho- dox Churches will define more precisely the areas of compe-

[47] La Primaute'Romaine ... Conclusions du Cornit6 Mixte, pp. l 13-125; cited passage on page 1 19.

[48] Translation as in The Rudder, D. Cummings, translator, 1983 reprint, pp. 50-52.

What About the Roman Primacy? ~ ~ ~ W % k ~ l l ~ % - I ^ X ^ - P ~ \ > ? \ \ \ \ R R \ \ \ - \ \ \ > % \ \ \ \ - ~ ~ C C C C C W*mY%\\- XIX -

tence coming from the primatial role in matters to do with regional primacies and the universal primacy."49

And the French dialogue has further observed:

All primatial activity - and thus in particular the primatial r81e of the bishop of that Church "which presides in love" for the communion of the sister Churches -has the service of edifica- tion and the communion of the Churches as its very raison d 'Ztre: its service is to watch over the unity of the Churches in the faith and express this faith, to bear witness to their com- munion, and not to allow the Churches to isolate themselves and to endanger the links of Catholic communion. Thus the r81e of a primate does not locate him above the Churches, but at the heart of their links of communion. 50

The Roman Patriarchate and the Roman Primacy

In December 1993 I offered some points which I considered would be of help in refining the service of the Roman Primacy to the Church. Perhaps these points might be useful in developing a response to Ut Unum Sint. They involve a clarification of the distinct rbles of the Bishop of Rome as a Local Patriarch, first of the Pentarchy, and the Bishop of Rome as the universal primate.

The establishment of a clear, credible set of boundaries to the Roman Patriarchate, and agreement on those boundaries.

[49] LaPrimaute'Romaine ... Conclusions du Cornit6 Mixte, pp. 113-125; citedpassage on pages 1 18-1 19.

[50] La Primaute'Romaine ... Conclusions du ComitkMixte, pp. 113-124; citedpassage on p. 117.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 I x * , ~ m%Rm,-,'~ 9 % ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - , ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ y

The restoration of the canonical obligation of the Patriarch of the West, when he assumes his office, to send his Profession of Faith to the other Patriarchs.

An end to the practice of the Pope commemorating himself at the diptychs, and the restoration of the authentic practice of the commemoration of the Patriarchs when the Pope celebrates the Eucharist, especially on solemn occasions.

The resolution of the discrepancy between the assurances given to the Orthodox in ecumenical dialogue, and the practical situation of the Eastern Catholics within the Roman Commun- ion.

A juridical guarantee that the terms in which Rome has defined the universal primacy will not be applied to our Churches.

A recognition that the primatial function of the Bishop of Rome vis-i-vis the universal Church is not subject to habitual dele- gation. 5 1

Each of these points should be considered in some detail.

1. The establishment of a clear, credible set of boundaries to the Roman Patriarchate, and agreement on those boundaries.

Roman Catholics often do not realize that there is a Patriarchate of the The Roman Patriarchate is almost invisible in terms of structure; this Patriarchate has no synod and no separate curia. Apart from the Pope himself, who is Patriarch of the West, the Roman Patriarchate appears to have no officials at all?3 The distinction be-

[5 11 Bishop Vsevolod of Skopelos, "Response to Bishop Basil (Losten): Patriarch and Pope, Different Levels of Roman Authority," Logos vol. 35 (1994) Nos. 1-4, pp. 239-255, cited passage on pages 254-255.

[52] Cf. Congar, Yves. "Le pape comme patriarche d'occident; approche d'une rkalitk trop nkglike," Istina 28, 1983,374-390 (388).

1531 It would appear that by Catholic standards this state of affairs is uncanonical. John

P r n What About the Roman Primacy?

---?e-? *-,-em rn - tween the Bishop of Rome in his r81e as universal primate and the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West has been almost totally obscured. But this distinction is vital if the Bishop of Rome's primatial ministry is to function properly. In 1972, Joseph Ratzinger wrote that:

the bishop of Rome holds an administrative office for the churches of Italy (and of the West generally) but not for the Church as a whole; for that she [sic] has a primacy as a direction finder and as a touchstone of unity.

It is also true to say that the primates of Alexandria and Antioch are regional primates, while the bishop of Rome holds a re- gional primacy and in addition a primac of quite a different type in relation to the Church as a whole. 3 4

Perhaps the strongest linchpin of papal ecclesiology in the second millennium is the reduction of the Patriarchs. Father Myroslaw Tataryn has written that:

In their search for the power to reform the Church, Popes Gregory VII (1073-1085) and Innocent 111 further broadened papal claims by establishing customs and practices which clearly subordinated all the Bishops to the person of the Pope. The Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, formally introduced the term "Rite" to refer to non-Latin Christians, and by so doing reduced them from ecclesiastical entities (Churches) to mere families of liturgical tradition. Finally with the Crusades and the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Roman Church expressed its total disregard for the jurisdiction and rights of the East by

Paul 11, Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, 3 114, provides that "Distinct from the curia of the eparchy of the patriarch, the patriarch must have at his see a patriarchal curia ...."

[54] Joseph Ratzinger, Das neue Volk Gottes Diisseldorf 19702, p. 131. Our thanks to Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., for locating and providing the original German text of this important essay. Our English translation is taken from J.-M. R. Tillard, The Bishop of Rome (Wilmington, DL: Michael Glazier, 1983) 50.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 hi: %--,-%%* w m ' \ x 4

establishing Roman so-called patriarchates in exclusively Byz- antine Sees (most important of which were Constantinople and Jerusalem). It is crucial to note the term "so-called patriar- chates," since they were patriarchates in name only, and neither had the traditional authority of Eastern Patriarchs nor an actual local Church over which to preside.55

These "Latin Patriarchates," whose titular Patriarchs became decorative appendages at the Papal Court, are the example which papal canon lawyers used to illustrate how patriarchs ought to relate to the Pope. This reduction in the Western understanding of the ministry of genuine, authentic Patriarchs in the universal Church has had grave consequences. The Popes of the second millennium have assumed that their patriarchal authority in the West should be extended over the Eastern Churches.

To illustrate by reductio ad absurdurn what this means, con- sider a possibility. As everyone knows, the Pope is Bishop of Rome. Imagine the results if the Pope were to take it for granted that throughout the world he should act as the diocesan bishop, appointing parish priests, deciding on the erection or suppression of deaneries, writing the diocesan statutes, approving the cumcula of the schools ... the episcopate of the world would never put up with it. Mutatis mutandis, that is what the popes of the second millennium have tried to do to the Eastern Patriarchates.

In any discussion of the distinction between the Pope and the Patriarch of the West, there must be a clear definition of the territory of the Roman Patriarch, and some indication of the basis of his claim to that territory. Acknowledging the primatial r6le of the Church of Rome in the universal Church does not mean that we must all join the diocese of Rome, nor that the diocese of Rome should suddenly have elastic frontiers. Neither does it mean that we must all join the Roman Patriarchate.

[55] Myroslaw Tataryn, "Papal and Local Primacy,"Logos vol. 34 (1993) pp. 117-141, cited passage pp. 124- 125.

What About the Roman P r i m a w - < , ~ < ~ , % , , ~ ~ % % % - ~ ~ ~ w k % , ~ : k % , w * * ~ w w . * ~ ~ * . w 2 ~ & ~ " : ~ ~ ~ ~ : 2 2 ~ % ~ ~ * ~ ~ m ~ w + ~ ~ ; ~ 7 .,*~*<\~,*

According to John Paul 11's Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, on1 the "Roman Pontiff' can determine the "territory" of & patriarchates. But no such law or tradition can be found in the first Millennium; if it had existed, Greece would be part of the Roman Patriarchate today.57 There can be no justification for making this matter the exclusive competence of the Pope; the practical result is the unending aggrandizement of the Roman Patriarchate at everyone else's expense.

The traditional title of the Patriarch of Alexandria is "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa." One would expect at least a nominal recognition of the Eastern Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria as pre-eminent in the ecclesiastical affairs of Catholics on that continent. Most African Catholics are probably unaware of even the existence of such a person. At an ecumenical conference in Milan in September 1993 I had the pleasure of meeting the Coptic Catholic Patriarch, and it was obvious at that meeting that the Catholic bishops from sub-Saharan Africa took no notice of this Patriarch.

For a real distinction between the primatial r81e of the Pope in the universal Church and the Pope's function as Patriarch of the West, there must be a clear, credible set of boundaries to the Roman Patriar- chate. Those boundaries should be established on the criteria of the first millennium.

In this connection, there is the issue of the growth of the Church into lands where she was not present during the first millennium. It is not self-evident that Alaska, Tierra del Fuego, and China all belong to the Roman Patriarchate. Nor is it self-evident that extensions of the Roman Patriarchate into the Western Hemisphere should be perceived to be immediately "on their own temtory," while extensions of the Eastern Churches should be somehow "exceptions to the rule." Neither Orthodoxy nor Roman Catholicism has succeeded in finding a solution

[56] Canon 146,2.

[57] The Popes of Rome resented the extension of Constantinople's jurisdiction into Illyricum and made strenuous efforts to reclaim the temtory.

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 4 No. 3 -\, - ~ ~ > - * ~ ~ + ~ % k ~ , % * * m * ~ r L ~ & ~ - ~ ~ -

to the problem of extensions of the Apostolic Churches encountering one another in the same lands in the West, but we must continue to search for a solution, which eventually can only take the form of encouraging the appearance of authentic Local Churches in these new lands, while providing for the ongoing relationships with the Mother Churches for as long as the faithful shall want them.

The Second Vatican Council provides that "the holy ecumeni- cal council wishes, where there is need, new patriarchates to be set up."58 More than thirty years later, the papacy continues to show no interest in the erection of new Patriarchates, and neither the 1983 Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church nor the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches provides for any procedure leading to the erection of new patriarchates.

It is no doubt true that numbers alone are not a sufficient criterion for determining whether a given Local Church should or should not be a patriarchate. But surely the number of faithful is a significant consideration in such a matter. Here are two examples:

The Coptic Catholic Church has six dioceses and a total of less than two hundred thousand faithful. It is a patriarchate.

The Syrian Catholic Church has twelve dioceses, and less than one hundred thirteen thousand faithful. It is a patriarchate. 59

I have not bothered to check the number of Latin Catholic dioceses and faithful in, for example, Australia. But I am confident that it is many times the number of Coptic Catholics or Syrian Catholics. Would it not be reasonable for the Latin Catholics in Australia to have some sui iuris structure analogous to a patriarchate? At present, the Pope must "personally" appoint every one of the three thousand or so Catholic bishops in the Latin Church around the world. No one man - not even the Bishop of Rome - is capable of knowing personally all

[58] Vatican 11, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, 8 11.

[59] My thanks to Father Ron Roberson, who has supplied me with these statistics from the 1997 Annuario Pontificio.

m--__Js_b What About the Roman Primacy?

~ w n v w , , m Y ~ m % ~ - - - , ~ ~ ~ < " ~ ~ " e , , % m

three thousand bishops, let alone all the potential candidates for these dioceses. This insistence that the "Roman Pontiff' must appoint all the bishops is a very recent development; it is not based on tradition.

One might suggest that at least the Catholics of the Latin Church the world over share a common liturgical tradition (though that is no reason to require this uncontrolled centralization). But this is not an accident of history; the local liturgical tradition of Latium has ruthlessly suppressed the Mozarabic liturgy, the Celtic liturgy, and above all the Gallican liturgy -to the very present day any reference to the Gallican tradition can arouse the strongest negative reactions in Rome.

Thus the re-establishment of a normal order requires the clear delineation of the boundaries of the Western Patriarchate, and the establishment of new patriarchates or quasi-patriarchates.

Since the Bishop of Rome is ex ofSicio Patriarch of the West, it is also not self-evident that he, and he alone, is entitled to determine the boundaries of every patriarchate in the Church, including his own. The history of the second millennium gives every reason to believe that entrusting such a matter to the exclusive judgment of the Bishop of Rome leads inexorably to the aggrandizement of the Roman Patriar- chate. Amore satisfactory method of reaching agreement on this matter must be developed.

2. The restoration of the canonical obligation of the Patriarch of the West, when he assumes his office, to send his Profession of Faith to the other Patriarchs.

Perhaps Catholics today will be shocked to hear this, but it is the canonical obligation of the Patriarch of the West, when he assumes his office, to send his Profession of Faith to the other Patriarchs (at least the others of the Pentarchy - and why not to the rest?). This was the accepted practice of the first millennium, and the reigning Pope's name was never added to the diptychs in any of the other Patriarchates until that Profession of Faith was received. John Paul 11's Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches makes much out of the obligation of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs to send their Profession of Faith to the Pope, and to ask ecclesiastical ~ommunion,6~ but

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 9 *,,%~~-,,~?,~,%wYV W ~ ~ - % < % ~ ~ - ~ * \ % % , - - " ~ ' ~ \ m - , v

completely ignores the same obligation which rests equally on the Pope. The Bishop of Rome is within the episcopate, not above it; the Patriarch of the West is within the Pentarchy, not above it.61 And to stress this, each new Bishop of Rome must send his Profession of Faith to his brothers.62

3. An end to the practice of the Pope commemorating himself at the diptychs during the Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman Mass, and the restoration of the authentic practice of the commemora- tion of the Patriarchs when the Pope celebrates the Eucharist, es- pecially on solemn occasions.

I have several times attended the Hol Mass offered by Pope John Paul 11. There was no hint of the diptychs+ of the commemoration of the other Patriarchs during the Eucharistic The Pope might

[60] CCEO, 9 76.

[61] Thus I take exception to the wording of canon 92, 3 3 of the CCEO, which describes the "Roman Pontiff' as "sancti Petri successor in primatu super universam Ecclesiam;" the primacy is always within the Church, never over the Church.

[62] From the Sixth Ecumenical Council at least until the eleventh-century Gregorian reform, each Bishop of Rome included the condemnation of Honorius in the profession of faith which newly-elected Bishops of Rome were required to take. Olivier Clement, "Le Pape, le Concile, et llEmpereur," in La Primaute' Romaine duns la Communion des ~gl ises , Comit6 Mixte Catholique-Orthodoxe en France, Presentation par le Metropolite Jtrkmie et Mgr Andr6 QuBlen, Cerf, Paris 1991, pp. 26-45; passage referred to on p. 37.

[63] Robert F. Taft, The Diptychs, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 238, Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, Roma 1991 (Professor Taftdescribes this work as volume IV in his project History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) gives a lengthy treatment of the diptychs.

[64] On 29 June 1995 in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican, this was particularly shocking. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was present in the Basilica, but his name was not mentioned in the Anaphora. Perhaps one might object that His All Holiness and the Bishop of Rome are not yet in full communion, and after all the name of His All Holiness had been mentioned earlier in the Mass, during the oratio universalis. Perhaps, but His Holiness Patriarch Maximos V of Antioch was also present in the Basilica; Patriarch Maximos V and Pope John Paul I1 are

= < W - % % % w 2 P % P What About the Roman Primacy?

a x . . = , *,m--x<* * ww*\* h *.

consider it improper to commemorate those Patriarchs with whom he is not yet in full communion.65 However, nothing prevents the Pope from commemorating the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, with whom His Holiness obviously is in full communion. Apparently this is never done.66 Why not? When the Ecumenical Patriarch serves Divine Lit- urgy, His All Holiness commemorates all the Patriarchs and heads of the Autocephalous Churches with whom the Great Church of Christ is in full communion.

At Rome, we find a different practice: when the Pope celebrates 67 the Eucharist, he commemorates himself! Under most circumstances

I would not take it upon myself to tell the Romans how to celebrate ,

their own Liturgy, but a solemn commemoration of oneself is inappro- priate.68 No hierarch in the Church should commemorate himself, save

certainly in full communion with one another. Yet Patriarch Maximos V's name was never mentioned at all, neither in the Anaphora nor in the oratio universalis. The presence of the Patriarch of Antioch was ignored completely. I was not the only person to find this profoundly offensive.

[65] It is also possible that the Patriarchs themselves might object to such a commemoration.

[66] Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum 8 21, objects to the very idea of the Roman Church commemorating the Eastern Patriarchs, on the ground that "this see is not only sister but also mother and head of the eastern sees." Such an argument must give way to the ecclesiology of Sister Churches firmly enunciated by Pope John Paul 11.

[67] "Offerimus pro ecclesia tua sancta catholica, quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum; una cum

esse v o l w , et omnibus orthodoxis . . ." Liturgie delllOriente Cristiano a Roma Nell'Anno Mariano 1987-88, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1990; p. 212. Also "Haec hostia nostrae reconciliationis perficiat, quaesumus, Domine, ad totius mundi pacem atque salutem. Ecclesiam tuam, peregrinantem in terra, in fide et caritate firmare digneris cum me indigno fmulo tuo, quem gregi tuo prczesse voluisti ..."; op. cit. p. 730.

[68] One might be reminded of the Scriptural account (Genesis 23:15) of how God Himself swore an oath to Abraham; since there is no one higher than God or equal to God, God swore by Himself. The Bishop of Rome, however, is not in the same

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 ^ ( * % - - * ?

as we pray silently in the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great, afer the commemoration of the hierarchy:

Remember also, 0 Lord, my unworthiness. By the multitude of Thy compassions, forgive my every transgression, both voluntary and involuntary. And grant that my sins may not cause Thee to withhold the grace of Thy Holy Spirit from these gifts here set forth.69

Whatever the practice may have been in the past, it would certainly be appropriate and salutary for the Pope to commemorate at the diptychs at least the Patriarchs with whom he is in commun- ion, and relinquish the practice of commemorating himself. On virtually any occasion, the Pope will surely have one or more presbyters or even bishops to concelebrate, so that once the Pope has cornmemo- rated the other Patriarchs, the senior concelebrant may commemorate the Pope, and everything will be done in order. Thus all will see that the Pope is indeed primus inter pares, not the unique holder of a still higher position.

4. The resolution of the discrepancy between the assurances given to the Orthodox in ecumenical dialogue, and the practical situation of the Eastern Catholics within the Roman Commun- ion.

I have discussed this several times and at length; there is no need to belabor the point here. Actions speak louder than words. There are numerous contradictions between the beautiful, high-sounding as- surances given to the Orthodox in our ecumenical contacts with the Catholic Church, and the practical reality experienced by the Eastern Catholics. There is a powerful myth to the effect that Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics never speak to each other. That is nonsense. To take a cogent example, the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch

position as Almighty God.

[69] Liturgy of Saint Basil, anaphora, prayer after the commemoration of the hierarchy. A presbyter uses the same form.

What About the Roman Primacy? , m ~ - m , % * m I m , % \ I \ n W * X X X X W w * m Y - % --?em >*T

and the Greek-Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch both have their central offices in ~ a m a s c u s ~ ~ and it is no more than a five-minute walk from one to the other. The two Patriarchs meet quite often, and so do the hierarchs, clergy, monastics and faithful. Comparing notes as to the discrepancies in what Rome says and does with regard to these com- munities is a frequent pastime, and these discrepancies encourage an unfortunate cynicism.

In Rome itself, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and the Congregation for the Eastern [Catholic] Churches are located on the same block, literally around the corner from each other. Some officials of the Roman Curia serve on both dicasteries. Why, then, do we find these inconsistencies?

5. A juridical guarantee that the terms in which Rome has de- fined the universal primacy will not be applied to our Churches.

Abusus non tollit usum, as the ancient Romans said. But still, we must recognize that abuses have created real apprehensions among the Orthodox, serious fear that any concession to the Papacy will come back to haunt us.71 There is a genuine fear that behind the language of Vatican 11, and behind Pope John Paul II's obvious longing to re-estab- lish full communion with Eastern Orthodoxy, there remains a silent determination of the Roman Curia to dominate, to control, and ulti- mately to strangle the Orthodox. In the Church, of all places, it is highly distasteful to have to require a juridical guarantee that the ecclesiastical authority whom we love and revere will nevertheless not abuse us! But allow me to offer an example of the juridical understanding of the primacy which we find completely unacceptable, and from which we require a sure protection:

[70] Antioch itself is in ruins; there is a small village outside the walls of the old city, but the central offices of the several Christian Churches moved to Damascus centuries ago.

, [71] These fears may perhaps explain Metropolitan John of Pergamon's strange phrase

in the passage quoted above, assuring his hearers that the primacy he describes is "harmless in an ecclesiology of communion"!

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 a-,,ww-mk,\- -,%*\,,w%ww,\~~~-~~ -%--A > > > > T P

We must above all point to the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the papacy, which was never disavowed in the least, and the practice consonant to it as evident in the actions of the popes and the Roman Curia, namely, that I!E

. . . always behave as such. whose ~ o h m i t e d solely by divine law as he himself defules it. He is hove the bishops even Y&D

they are assembled in an ecumenical council. It is therefore inaccurate and misleading to speak that a 'union' had been concluded between a specific Eastern Church and a certain pope. Union implies some degree of equality between these Churches. Whenever the pope is the party of the first part. the onlv correct term is submission.

It is nayvet6 to mention the promises made by one pope at the time, e.g., of the Union of Brest ( 1 5 9 6 ) ~ ~ and point to the fact that the Roman Curia blithely ignored them. The bishops of Brest submitted to Pope Clement VIII an Act of Reunion dated June 11, 1595, in which Article 9 expressly stipulated that 'Matrimonia sacerdotalia ut integra constent.' The pope ac- cepted this condition in the Constitution, Magnus Dominus of December 23, 1595. However, what one Dope has promised

n in f dhe second part. the specific Eastern Catholic Church. relin- quishes at the time of union or. more correct 6 . 9 ly. submission. any and all rights except those which are graciously wanted by the pope in office.73

[72] 'The Union of the Ruthenians was not formally an agreement between two churches, as the Union of Florence had been. It was a unilateral acceptance by the Holy See. The bishops had not gained a formal promise that the conditions of union as expressed in the 'Articles' would be met.' (Joseph Macha, S. J., Ecclesiastical Unification, Orientalia Chris. Analecta 198, Pont. Inst. Orient. Stud., Rome 1974, p. 193 [footnote as given in Pospishil].

[73] Archimandrite Victor Pospishil, J.C.D., Sc. Eccl. Orient. L., "Compulsory Celibacy for the Eastern Catholics in the Americas," originally published in Diakonia, issues 2 & 3, 1976; subsequently reprinted in Toronto as a separate

What About the Roman Primacy? --w--aAYk\ W) - ? ? ? ? S XU\%\\ \ r m-*--<< Z **m > 1- 9 , - .

This description of the Roman Primacy was written by Archi- mandrite Victor Pospishil in 1976. Father Victor is a highly respected Eastern Catholic canon lawyer and his article appeared in Diakonia, then published at Fordham University, and was subsequently reprinted as a separate booklet. In the intervening twenty-one years, to the best of my knowledge, no Catholic canonist has attempted to offer any refutation of Father Victor's description of the Roman Primacy.

But consider the consequences of Father Victor's analysis. He writes that the Pope's "power is limited solely by divine law as he himself defines it." Could there be a better recipe for unbridled tyranny? Could there be a clearer statement that no one other than the Pope has any legitimate rights? Even worse is the premise that "what one pope has promised does not bind him, and even less his successors." The inevitable consequence of that principle is that there is no point in discussing anything with the pope and there is no point in paying the least attention to what the pope might have to say - because by definition the pope's word is no good! Sane, grown-up people do not carry on serious conversations with the wind; normal adults prefer to speak with people who recognize that one is bound by one's own promised word. To put it crudely, I prefer to be robbed at gun point by an ordinary street mugger, than to be cheated by some "benevolent" despot who tries to convince me that he is defrauding me for my own good.

Anyone of ordinary intelligence can understand that this con- cept of the Roman Primacy is acceptable to almost no one. The Bishop of Rome is not super-human; there is no convincing reason to entrust him with the exclusive function of determining his own authority by the divine law of which he is the exclusive judge and interpreter, and there is certainly no justification for such a procedure in the teaching or practice of the first millennium. The suggestion that the Bishop of Rome cannot be bound by his own promised word is not merely unacceptable, it is utterly immoral and therefore contrary to divine

74 law, no matter who interprets it. One would not voluntarily engage in

brochure, cited passage on pp. 33-34.

[74] Holy Scripture repeatedly teaches that God is faithful and true to His word; anyone

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 w v-" \->*%<,-z-.wks > , ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ , -**%s, -x* u + ~ - % > * % % , , % ~ w ~ m w ~ % - ,

ordinary commercial transactions with such a person, let alone trust him with matters involving one's eternal salvation.

Because of the very real abuses of the past, in sometimes uncontrollable triumphalism and the improper use of power in certain Western presentations of the papacy, there is a need for correctives. The language of Vatican I requires a further, authoritative "re-calibration," one might say, in response to the Orthodox protest (which many Catholics also share) against these exaggerations. This is especially true in the language of Catholic canon law.

Reading the two sets of canon law which John Paul I1 has promulgated, one finds the sort of emphasis on the "Roman pontiff '75

which approaches Father Victor's description. The root of this fright- ening overdevelopment may perhaps lie in a principle which does have its origins in the first millennium: Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur - The First See is judged by no one?6 In John Paul 11's Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, this is even more firmly stated: Romanus Pontifex a nemine iudicatur - The Roman Pontijfis judged by no one. 77

The original meaning of this postulate - and in its original wording it refers to the Roman Church, not to the Bishop of Rome -is that somewhere there must be a court of final appeal, able to take a decision, and that court of final appeal is the Church of Rome. As I have already indicated, relying on secular authorities to act as a court of final appeal will not do. Ecumenical Councils are relatively infrequent events, and cannot be convened each time an adjudication is needed.

who claims to speak by divine right must therefore be true to his own words, and may neither break his word nor speak falsely.

[75] Why are the Catholic canonists so fond of this title? It derives from the pagan Roman religious polytheism, and before that from Roman civil engineering, and has no Christian significance.

[76] John Paul 11, Codes Iuris Canonici, 5 1404.

[77] CCEO 5 1058.

What About the Roman Primacy? ~ ~ ~ % - - ~ x % ~ ~ - ~ ~ % w ~ A )_M'

Hence the conduct of the court of final appeal belongs to the First among the Bishops, the Bishop of Rome. Well and good, so far as it goes.

But it does not go to the point of recognizing that the Bishop of Rome is absolutely exempt from judgment himself. There is a fine legal principle which also goes back to ancient times, and which is found in every respectable constitutional system: Nemo debet esse iudex in propria causa! No one may be the judge in his own case?8 The Christian imperative requires everyone in the Church to listen atten- tively to the "other" instead of exalting himself. Commenting on Orientale Lumen, Bishop Kallistos teaches that

The Pope, then, is telling us here that everyone, including himself, needs to listen and learn. The laity need to listen to the hierarchs, but the hierarchs also need to listen to the laity. 'Bishops,' observes Saint Cyprian of Carthage, 'should not only teach; they have likewise to learn.'79 I imagine that John Paul I1 would be happy to add, 'even Popes have to learn.' So also do Patriarchs! Not long ago a financial house in Britain used to advertise itself as 'the listening bank.' I am encouraged by the notion of a 'listening Papacy;' that is something that we Orthodox ought readily to accept.

Listening is certainly crucial in all our work for Christian unity. Ecumenism means learning from each other and listening to each other; there is no true ecumenism without creative silence - without that silence which, to use the Pope's own words in Orientale Lumen, 'allows the Other to speak.'80 (We shall be returning to this phrase.) We can spell the word other with a capital, as the Pope does here but equally we may give it an

[78] Perhaps the faculty of canon law and civil law at the Catholic University of America can offer a detailed history and exposition of this legal principle and its applicability to canon law.

[79] Epistle 74: 10: 1 .

1801 Orientale Lumen $ 16.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 m-s~v

initial lower case. Let us listen both to the Other and to the other.81

History confirms that no human being is likely to be a perfect judge of himself. In recent times it is the custom for the Pope to make a sacramental confession every day; at least once a day someone reminds the Pope that he is neither absolute, nor omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor impeccable. Recently in three separate documents 82

Pope John Paul I1 has acknowledged that at least to some extent the Church of Rome shares in the blame for the divisions among Christians, and asks forgiveness for this. The very act of asking forgiveness entails submitting oneself to the judgment of another; by this act Pope John Paul I1 has implicitly disavowed the "principle" that he is exempt from any judgment at all.

Even if one takes at face value the assertion that no one in the Church ever has a "right" to judge the nothing in Scripture or Tradition forbids the Pope from soliciting the wisdom of his brothers, and particularly of those of his brothers who also exercise primacy in their own spheres: the other patriarchs. The very sight of a superior behaving with genuine humility and modesty will invariably strengthen his authority. In the Kingdom of God he who is the first must make himself the least of all and become the servant of all.84 The only authority in the Church is that which is destined for the humble service

[8 11 Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, "Prophet, Liturgist, Hesychast: Orientale Lumen on the Monastic Vocation," Orientale h e n Conference 1997Proceedings (Fairfax, VA: Eastern Christian Publications, 1997), p. 41.

[82] John Paul 11, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 10 November 1994, 5 34; Orientale Lumen, 5 17; Ut Unum Sint, 5 88.

[83] The Sixth Ecumenical Council judged and condemned Honorius of Rome, and the Roman Church has never attempted to overturn that decision. Third Council of Constantinople, "Exposition of Faith," Greek and Latin texts with English translation in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, Norman P. Tanner, editor, Georgetown University Press 1990, pp. 124-130.

[84] Mark 10:43.

What About the Roman Primacj? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % ~ ~ , ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - _%,m%-X(\ n _\%P\%-,,-%*-\,\-b\w' m

of brotherly communion in love and truth. The canonists should forget the title "Roman Pontiff' and lay their emphasis on the title "Servant of the Servants of ~ o d . " ~ ~

On this very point, I am encouraged by John Paul 11, who teaches in Ut Unum Sint:

In the beautiful expression of Pope St. Gregory the Great, my ministry is that of servus servorum Dei. This designation is the best possible safeguard against the risk of separating power (and in particular the primacy) from ministry. Such a separation would contradict the very meaning of power according to the Gospel: 'I am among you as one who serves' (Lk 22:27), says Our Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the

What, then, is to be done to reconcile the principle that no one may be the judge in his own case with the principle that the First See is judged by no one? I am neither a canonist nor a civil lawyer, but it seems to me that the solution could lie in an agreement that when a suitable matter arises, the First See itself can create a special tribunal for the occasion, endowed by the Bishop of Rome with the task of resolving the issue, whatever it might be.87 By giving such a special tribunal the authority to judge the question in the name of the First See, the principle that no one else judges the First See is kept inviolate, and by keeping the individual person of the then-incumbent Bishop of

-

[85] In a letter to his faithful, Pope Martin I described himself as "servant of the servants of God and, by God's grace, Bishop of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the city of Rome, in agreement with our Holy Council of the very venerable priests" (Acta Romanorwn Pontij?cum a S . Clemente ad Cloestinum 111, Vatican, 1943,530). The style "servant of the servants of God" is often attributed to Saint Gregory the Great, but some evidence indicates that it is even earlier.

[86] John Paul 11, Ut Unum Sint, $j 88.

[87] For example, as suggested earlier, a disagreement about the territorial boundaries of patriarchates.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3

Rome at "arm's length," so to speak, from the tribunal, the principle that no one may be the judge in his own case also remains inviolate.

In this regard, a well-known statement of Saint Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, will bear repeating:

Indeed, they govern with violence and harshness, those who are eager not to straighten out their inferiors by peaceful arguments, but to weigh them down by dominating them harshly

When Saint Paul said to his disciple Timothy: 'Command and teach these thingsvt8 he does not recommend a tyrannical domination to Timothy, but the authority which must come from Timothy's way of life.89

The same Pope, Saint Gregory the Great, also wrote these most edifying words to Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria:

Your Beatitude ... speaks to me saying 'as you have com- manded.' I must ask you not to use such words in speaking of me, for I know what I am and what you are. In rank you are my brothers, in manner of life my fathers. I have therefore not given orders but have simply done my best to indicate what I think useful ... I do not consider anything to be an honor which, as I know, undermines the honor of my brothers. My honor is the honor of the universal Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. Then am I truly honored, when honor is not denied to each one to whom it is due. 90

[88] I Timothy 4: 1 1

1891 St. Gregory the Great, Comment. in lob, 23:23-24 (PL 76,265-266). St. Gregory's interpretation of the Epistle to Timothy is borne out by the next verse of that Epistle: "set the believersan example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity."

[go] PL 77, 933; cited in Tillard, The Bishop of Rome, 190-91. This passage is also cited in Vatican I. Pastor Aeternus.

7%-x What About the Roman Primacy?

\x ""Ykmw-mx*<-\<< >wm--, *xh\ inY

6. A recognition that the primatial function of the Bishop of Rome vis-&-vis the universal Church is not subject to habitual delegation? *

Joseph Ratzinger (among others) teaches, as I mentioned above that

the bishop of Rome holds an administrative office for the churches of Italy (and of the West generally) but not for the Church as a whole; for that she [sic] has a primacy as a direction finder and as a touchstone of unity. 92

This idea strengthens the insistence that the essential functions of the universal primate may not be habitually delegated.93 The func- tions of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate are not an "adminis- trative office," but rather a service of "keeping watch, like a sentinel, so that through the efforts of the pastors the true voice of Christ the shepherd may be heard."94 This basically charismatic service as a sentinel, a direction finder, and a touchstone of unity does not imply the need for a permanent bureaucracy of people, all of whom claim to act with the "unjudgeable" divine authority of the Pope, and none of whom can be called to account. Preventing the "habitual delegation" of papal authority will mean that the sheer physical limitations on the Pope (who

[91] I owe this insight to my good friend Mitrophoric Archpriest Petro B. T. Bilaniuk, whose doctoral dissertation De magisteno ordinano Swnmi Pont$cis was directed by Msgr. Michael Schmaus, Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the University of Munich. On the strength of this dissertation, and on the recommendation of Professor Schmaus, the University of Munich awarded Petro Bilaniuk the degree of Doctor of Theology magna cum laude.

[92] Joseph Ratzinger, Das new Volk Gottes Diisseldorf 1970, p. 13 1 . Our thanks to Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., for locating and providing the original German text of this important essay. Our English translation is taken from J.-M. R. Tillard, The Bishop of Rome (Wilmington, DL: Michael Glazier, 1983) 50.

1931 Catholic canon law recognizes this principle with regard to the other patriarchs: CCEO 7 8 , s 1 . Extending it to the universal primacy seems quite logical.

[94] John Paul 11, Ut Unum Sint, § 94.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 W , P m + ~ P P P

is, after all, one man) could alleviate the fear of many people that this primacy inevitably becomes a self-justifying bureaucratic tyranny.

The "Sovereign of the Temporal Dominions of the Roman has his diplomatic representatives in countries all over the

world, accredited to the various governments who in turn send repre- sentatives to the Vatican. Vatican representatives to specific states and to inter-governmental organizations no doubt accomplish much good. But the Papal Nuncio may not be a "Locum-Tenens of the Patriarch or something of the sort; in the Local Church the Nuncio is an honored guest, not a superior authority. Certainly in extraordinary situations, such as appeals to Rome under the canons of the Council of ~ a r d i c a ? ~ the Pope may and should send legates to report and try to organize the necessary healing process; even with modem means of travel the Pope cannot be everywhere at once?7 But legates for such a purpose, and such direct papal interventions themselves outside the Western Patriar- chate, are and must be, by their very nature, precisely extraordinary events, not something which occurs on a dail basis, and not delegates who normally reside and function among us. 88

As a highly respected Roman Catholic theologian reminds us, even Eastern Catholics - let alone Eastern Orthodox! - are seriously determined that:

[95] Yet another title of the Bishop of Rome.

[96] See Leslie W. Bernard, The Council of Sardica 343AD, Sofia, Synodal Publishing House, 1983.

[97] Nor is it particularly desirable that the Pope should attempt to be everywhere at once. The Pope is Bishop of Rome, and his first task is to look after his own diocese.

[98] Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I describes the Pope's right to intervene as "ordinary." However, this refers to the teaching that the Pope is not delegated by anyone else when he acts in this way. In my own sentence above, I use the term "extraordinary" in its more usual meaning, to refer to something which is relatively rare and does not happen at determined intervals.

What About the Roman Primacj? *-->,=,\> -.

in what concerns the internal structure of these Eastern [Catho- lic] Churches, inherited from the most ancient Tradition, their strict liturgical regulation, their present discipline, especially their synodal discussion, the Bishop of Rome should not inter- fere in such a way that he would act like a super-patriarch. His primacy must be inscribed within the network of episcopal functions and hierarchies proper to these ecclesial bodies, without violating their dignity and the perception they have of being responsible for their own fidelity to a long tradition. They could not live under a protectorship, a guardianship.

At Vatican 11, this was the privilege especially of the East - by the voice of Eastern bishops such as Maximos IV but also through the research of several Western theologians examining carefully the great tradition - making the Fathers of the Council aware of this need. It specifies the contours of primacy. It is not enough to say that this primacy does not stifle the authority and responsibility of the bishop of each local Church. What must be added is that it respects the rights and privileges of those episcopal seats whose history attaches them more directly to the apostolic Churches. In other words, this primacy does not turn up its nose at history. 99

Squaring the

The Church is not static or rigid; the Church is a dynamic, lively movement, the movement of God towards His people, and the move- ment of the pilgrim People of God here in our earthly exile towards our true home, the Kingdom of Heaven. In the life of every Christian and

[99] J. M-R. Tillard, Church of Churches. The Ecclesiology of Communion, translated by R. C. De Peaux, 0. Praem. Michael Glazier Book, Liturgical Press: Collegeville, 1992 (unfortunately the English translation is very poor). Cited passage on p. 272.

[loo] I am often told emphatically that a square circle is an impossibility. That statement is only true if our vision of reality lacks movement.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 %,*,--<mww--~x

every Christian community headed by its Bishop, the Church is the movement of those who seek with hope to share in the most dynamic movement of all, the Eternal Life of the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity, One in Essence and Undivided.

When our Orthodox liturgical poetry seeks to portray the life of the angels and saints in heaven, the Church sometimes uses the image of the dance; the angels dance eternally and the saints join them in this timeless choreography. Heaven itself is not at all static or rigid. This image of the dance, of sacred choreography, has important ecclesiologi- cal implications, and perhaps the most creative is with regard to the question of primacy and equality among the bishops. As our colleagues in France have observed:

A dialectic tension among the many local "poles" and centers of agreement, among whom one is the first, can be sensed in the midst of the one hierarchal ministry and the various levels of the life of the Church. These "poles" cannot be absorbed, some into others, because they do not derive from each other. 101

This "dialectic tension" is not in itself a fault. In dogmatic theology, we find such tension in such fundamental doctrines as the recognition of Three Persons in One God, or the recognition of Two Natures in the One Person of Jesus Christ. The need for juridical guarantees which I mentioned above is a real need - indeed, it is a crucial need. But there is also a need for trust, for forgiveness, for an Orthodox willingness to recognize that we need the Roman Primacy, perhaps now more than in previous periods of our history, and that ultimately our confidence must not be in juridical guarantees, nor in promises, but in God Himself.

[ loll La Primaute' Romaine ... Conclusions du CornitC Mixte, pp. 113-125; cited passage on page 1 19.

s m a P * m Y ? ? t P What About the Roman Primacy?

-**.m, e~rn-sF~~?<%.%- w,m

Pope John Paul I1 greets Bishop Vsevolod in Saint Peter's in June 1995

There will never be a perfect juridical system which cannot be abused. Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, canonists, theologians, monastics, priests, deacons, lay people are all sinners, and are all capable of greed, of hunger for power, of ambition, of lack of love.lo2 We must and we shall do our best to take human sinfulness into account, but eventually we must love and trust with that special sort of Christian commitment which is able to love and trust again even after we may feel that our love and trust have been betrayed.

Thus I look for a generous Orthodox response to Ut Unum Sint. The Orthodox are not going to "give away the store;" we have a good

[I021 Which again indicates that nobody can convincingly assert that he is above judgment.

Eastern Churches Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3 <-',-a,m*&<--%%

deal to say about the ideology of the Roman Primacy and the way in which it has been exercised. John Paul I1 states in the encyclical that the Roman Primacy will not renounce what is essential to its rnis- sion.lo3 And he claims "the power and the authority without which such an office would be illusory."104 He also reminds us several times of the passages in the New Testament which Roman controversialists of the second millennium would like to interpret as referring exclusively to Saint Peter and exclusively to the Pope.

John Paul I1 is clearly a man of high intelligence and under- standing. He knows full well that he cannot invite the Orthodox to the discussion and dialogue which he wants and expect the Orthodox to allow him to decide unilaterally precisely what is essential to the mission of the Roman Primacy and exactly what his power and author- ity must be, and he is aware that the Holy Fathers of the Church offer a broader understanding of those New Testament passages. Once the conversation begins, these matters will be thoroughly discussed and sifted. We shall not re-enact the Council of Lyons, where the Emperor was forced to sign his acceptance of the papal claims before the hierarchs had even assembled.

But there is no need to fear that we would emerge from such a conversation with the Roman Primacy in tatters. On the contrary. The Roman Primacy is and should be a gift of God to His Church, a service to the Church which we need.

[103] Ut Unwn Sint, 95 b.

[I041 Ibid., 94 b.