If you want to understand how the Orthodox Church differs from the Catholic Church on administration both at the local and "universal" levels, the below article is a pretty good gloss of the topic.
(mospat.ru) - The problem of primacy in the Universal Church has been repeatedly raised during the work of the Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. On March 27, 2007, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church instructed the Synodal Theological Commission to study this problem and draft an official position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem (Minutes, No. 26). Meanwhile, the Joint Commission at its meeting on October 13, 2007, in Ravenna, working in the absence of a delegation of the Russian Church and without consideration for her opinion, adopted a document on the Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Having studied the Ravenna document, the Russian Orthodox Church disagreed with it in the part that refers to synodality and primacy on the level of the Universal Church. Since the Ravenna document makes a distinction between three levels of church administration, namely, local, regional and universal, the following position taken by the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church deals with this problem on the three levels as well.Complete article here.
In the Holy Church of Christ, primacy belongs to her Head – our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man. According to St. Paul, the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence (Col. 1:18).
According to the apostolic teaching, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,which is his body (Eph. 1:17-23).
The Church, which is on the earth, represents not only a community of those who believe in Christ but also a divine-human organism: Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular (1 Cor. 12:27).
Accordingly, various forms of primacy in the Church in her historical journey in this world are secondary versus the eternal primacy of Christ as Head of the Church by whom God the Father reconciles all things unto himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven (Col. 1:20). Primacy in the Church should be in the first place a ministry of reconciliation with the aim to build harmony, according to the apostle who calls to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).
In the life of the Church of Christ, which lives in this age, primacy, along with synodality, is one of the fundamental principles of her order. On various levels of church life, the historically established primacy has a different nature and different sources. These levels are 1) the diocese (eparchy), 2) the autocephalous Local Church, and 3) Universal Church...
Posts
The article states clearly that which I always have understood to be the case. There can be no "reunion" unless the papacy, as understood by Roman Catholics, ceases to exist. (Goes without saying that all the other theological inventions of the Catholic church also need to be eliminated.)
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting this article.
The so-called Primacy of Honor is a hollow and meaningless 'primacy'... God gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the responsibility to feed His lambs and sheep. Peter in his successors is the Universal Shepherd - or as Tertullian called Pope Callixtus I: the Pontifex Maximus, that is, the bishop of bishops. Many early Church Fathers attest to the Supremacy of the Roman Church including Iranaeus an Pope Leo the Great. Pope St. Leo the Great (r. 440-461) and Papal Supremacy http://socrates58.blogspot.ca/2007/03/pope-st-leo-great-r-440-461-and-papal.html
ReplyDeleteThat would be the Roman position, yes. Our reading of all the items you stated would differ greatly. If you would like to read the Orthodox presentation of the same sources you cited I'd recommend:
DeleteImperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D. by John Meyendorff
The controversy might be more interesting if more than a very few Catholics actually listened to the Bishop of Rome.
ReplyDeleteIt is sad to read that some responders to this article have such simplistic answers for questions which vex theologians in their bi-lateral discussions. Sometimes it is best to read and discern differing points of view, and maintain a prayerful silence.
ReplyDeleteThe question of primacy is certainly a difficult one. There's ample information with which to support multiple positions. It seems to me that the the function of the primus inter pares as an arbiter of disputes between local churches as well as the first representative of Orthodoxy at inter-Christian gatherings, and therefore it's most vocal representative, is more than just an hollow primacy. It's a primacy that fills in the gaps between local churches and, ideally, works to assure unity between them when necessary; a ministry of reconciliation as the article says. That's a vital ministry for the Ecclesia as a whole but not one that requires a primate with immediate and universal jurisdiction. But I think all this gets the cart before the horse.
ReplyDeleteThe outstanding question for Orthodox, in my opinion, is what exactly a primacy of reconciliation entails. Does it include sole authority to do mission work outside the established boundaries of local churches as Constantinople insists? Does it grant the privilege of intervening in intra-church disputes uninvited? Does the bearer of such a primacy have sole authority to interpret the ecumenical canons pertaining to the universal church or define the teaching of the Church? I don't think the EOC as a body has come to much agreement on questions like these. Between the Russian position and the Greek position on primacy in the Orthodox Church there is a significant chasm. I would like to see that resolved first because we can't very well speak with one voice to our Roman friends about primacy if we don't agree ourselves on what it is or does.
Perhaps I have become a tad cynical. But am I the only one who thinks that while this may have been addressed to Rome, it was equally meant for the eyes of Constantinople?
ReplyDeleteI'd take that a step further and say that when Constantinople talks about the need for a visible primus, it's talking more about itself than about Rome.... At least, that's how I understood their position at Ravenna.
DeleteThe issue, as I see it, with all these statements - coming from Moscow, Istanbul or elsewhere - is their view comes across as primacy meaning power: it is a "power" of honour, a "power" of right, a "power" of control. To me, this view does not seem in keeping with the Orthodox tradition.
ReplyDeletePrimacy should be of humility and love: it should be kenotic, it should be serving, it should be outward looking. If ever anyone is given any sort of primacy - whether captain of a football team or leader of an orchestra let alone a primacy within the Church - then it should be focused entirely on those being led.