Roman Primacy Vsevolod

What About the Roman Primacy? Bishop Vsevolod of Scopelos This paper was presented as a talk to the Theological Students Association 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 Constantinople,5 the Emperor at Constantinople always remained the oma an ~ m ~ e r oheld r ~ 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.

-

-1----

What About the Roman Primacy? a "W"*

x%m%uwNwm - . m - w m \ \

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 faith: against the Arians,8 against the Monophysites, against the Monothelites,9 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 villages, 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 successor retained the power of appointment and deposition of the Ecumenical 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

~

"

~

~

\

~

m vv % -,, ~

~

~

~

-% \ -% %

,

%

m

P

century. Nobody ever attempted to justify this theologically, but since the Ottoman Empire came to include a large share of Orthodox territories 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 Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire, and the Sultans were careful to impede any contacts between the Orthodox Church and the Pope of ~ o m el3. 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 Sultans 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,16but one after another Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and even Greece obtained recognition 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 r . l ~attempt never succeeded; unlike model of the Roman ~ m ~ e r 0 The 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 w w m 3 d a , ; , .4 No. 3

Y*

x,

2

rVXY

*yj*yj,

arn

% % ,--

*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 Jerusalem became resident prelates at the PatriarchalCourt 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 Orthodox in Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia.

But two flaws in the attempted universal primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate slowly emerged. First, and more important, this primay rested almost exclusively on the "principle of accommodation," the notion that ecclesiastical structures follow civil structures. Historically, the principle of accommodationhas 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 Primag -*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 Constantinople'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 Constantinoplefrom the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence, Cambridge 1968.

Eastern Churches Journal Vol 4 No. 3 ~ % < A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n w m r w m r

u

A

,

~

*

~

,

,

~

*

~

~

~

%

.

.

~

,

~

\

%

~

\

,

%

>

~

~

,

~

W

~

,

~

~

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 resulting 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 expression 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 dimension. Regionalism must also always be reconciled with universalism. 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

~

,

,

~

~

,

,

~

~

la

-

,

--

What About therv Roman Prima%: *

m w % , - ~ w ~ , * , ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ m , ~* w *)-w- , ~ -h ,*%-\*,we< el

XW

i

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 Czechoslovakia, 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, "Collegialityand 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 countries. But instead of the Local Orthodox Churches in the Orthodox countries, now able to act in freedom, moving towards the long-promised resolution of the canonical situation of the Orthodox in the diaspora, 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 unrecognized "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 instruments 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 succession? A wise Italian Roman Catholic layman has recently made a relevant call to avoid 'ecumenical triumphalism' 'which wavers 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 ecclesiological 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 1993Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, an Orthodox theologian of outstanding erudition, had this to say: in an ecclesiology of communion, neither synodality nor primacy 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

\%-

\

YrnI

~ > \ , \ \ , ~ ~ \ B V I\ *%

,*

%

%

,

,

%

~

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 frightening 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 Pontijfisjudged 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

%

)_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 attentively 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 documents82 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 nAbout the Roman Primacj?

_%~ ,m%-X(\

_\%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, $j88.

[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 commanded.' 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 myfathers. 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: 11

1891 St. Gregory the Great, Comment. in lob, 23:23-24 (PL76,265-266).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>wmPrimacy? --, \x

""Ykmw-mx*