Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church

Catholic Education ^ | November 21, 2005 | GEORGE SIM JOHNSTON

[NYer]

The culture is now flooded with bogus scholarship whose main purpose is to put Christianity — and especially orthodox Catholicism — on the defensive. But most Catholics have no idea how to respond, and more than a few take these books and documentaries at face value. After all, they have the imprimatur of the History Channel or a large publishing house like Doubleday.

---

In his famous review of Leopold von Ranke's History of the Popes, Thomas Babington Macaulay, the great Victorian essayist, launches into a purple passage that Catholic students once knew by heart. It is one of the great set pieces of English writing. In it he voices the opinion that there is no subject more worthy of study than the Roman Catholic Church. "The history of that Church," he writes, "joins together the two great ages of human civilization. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon.... The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs."

Macaulay keeps laying it on, awestruck by the Church's perdurance through the centuries. The rhetorical excess is particularly striking coming from an agnostic who regarded history as a steady climb from religious obscurantism to secular enlightenment. But Macaulay's point is always worth making: No institution in history is remotely comparable to the Catholic Church. It is a subject that well repays study. And yet most Catholics know very little about their own history.

This is unfortunate for many reasons, but especially today, when a dinner-party conversation can suddenly turn to some specious best-seller that presumes to rewrite Church history. The culture is now flooded with bogus scholarship whose main purpose is to put Christianity — and especially orthodox Catholicism — on the defensive. But most Catholics have no idea how to respond, and more than a few take these books and documentaries at face value. After all, they have the imprimatur of the History Channel or a large publishing house like Doubleday.

---

The new wave of anti-Catholic "scholarship" predictably revisits hot-button topics like the Inquisition and Galileo; but increasingly its focus is on the first centuries of Christianity. Its object is to make the early Church look like a bad mistake, a betrayal of Jesus' intentions, a conspiracy of dead white males obsessed with controlling their followers and, even worse, putting a lid on everyone's sexual fulfillment.

---

The new wave of anti-Catholic "scholarship" predictably revisits hot-button topics like the Inquisition and Galileo; but increasingly its focus is on the first centuries of Christianity. Its object is to make the early Church look like a bad mistake, a betrayal of Jesus' intentions, a conspiracy of dead white males obsessed with controlling their followers and, even worse, putting a lid on everyone's sexual fulfillment. Post-apostolic Christianity is portrayed as elitist, anti-feminist, and intent on mindless conformity — in contrast, say, to the second-century Gnostics, who apparently were as sexually enlightened as any modern professor who contributes to the Jesus Seminar.

The media have a sharp appetite for this recycling of 19th-century, anti-clerical scholarship, and so books by scholars like Gary Wills and Elaine Pagels get maximum exposure. And then there is The Da Vinci Code, which has sold a staggering nine million copies. Both the New York Times and National Public Radio seem to think that it is based on historical fact. Even its author appears to think so. But a book that claims that Christians did not believe in the divinity of Christ until the fourth century, that a Roman emperor chose the four Gospels, that the Church executed five million witches, and that Opus Dei has monks is obviously little more than a farrago of nonsense.

We live in a sea of false historiography, and so it is worth asking: What exactly happened during the first centuries of Christianity? How did a small band of believers, starting out in a despised outpost of the Roman Empire, end up the dominant institution of the Mediterranean world? What was "primitive Christianity"? John Henry Newman became a Catholic in the course of answering that question. History, he said, is the enemy of Protestantism. It is also the enemy of the newly vigorous anti-Catholicism that circulates among our cultural elites.

  

In the Beginning

The word gospel means "good news," and the first thing to say about the early Church is that its members had an urgent message for a civilization that already contained the seeds of its own demise. Early Christianity was above all a missionary enterprise, an evangelical movement in a world ripe for its teachings. At the end of his public life Christ had said to His disciples, "Go"; and, in addition to the journeys recorded in the New Testament, tradition has the apostles spreading all over the map: Thomas to Parthia and India, Andrew and John to Asia Minor, Bartholomew to south Arabia. Each may have undergone exploits as spectacular as St. Paul's, but unfortunately there was no St. Luke to record them.

Early Church Fathers like St. Augustine believed that Providence had arranged ancient history so that Christianity could spread as rapidly as possible. The Pax Romana was a remarkable achievement, and the general law and order, combined with Roman road-building, made it easier to get around Europe at the time of Tiberius and Claudius than it would be a thousand years later. There was also a widespread Hellenistic culture, which meant that many people spoke Greek. This was the legacy of Alexander the Great, who not only spread a common tongue but, like other rulers of that era, had a mania for building cities. The large concentration of urban dwellers made evangelization more efficient, and within the space of about a century we find Christianity flourishing in all the vital nerve-centers of the Roman empire, which had a population of about 60 million.

The great tipping points of history often occur beneath the radar, and it is doubtful that anyone in the year 51 noticed an itinerant rabbi from Tarsus crossing the Aegean Sea into Macedonia. But this was Christianity's entrance into Western Europe, with incalculable consequences for the future. Christopher Dawson writes that Paul's passage from Troas in Asia Minor to Philippi did more to shape the subsequent history of Europe than anything recorded by the great historians of the day. Put simply: The Faith created modern Europe, and Europe created the modern world.

What Paul and other missionaries found everywhere in the Roman Empire was a spiritual vacuum: The Roman gods, practically speaking, were dead, the victims of much scoffing from intellectuals and poets. The upper orders had turned to Stoicism — self-cultivating itself in aristocratic isolation — but this spoke only to a small minority. Others with spiritual hankerings went to more dubious sources: mystery cults, Asiatic magic, exotic neo-Platonisms, whose goal was ecstatic visions and emotional release. There was a lot of philosophical mumbo jumbo in an atmosphere of tent revivalism, with a dash of emperor worship on the side. But no matter where it turned for solace, the late classical mind was steeped in melancholy, a kind of glacial sadness; it was utterly lacking in what Catholics would call the theological virtue of hope.

---

Since The Da Vinci Code and other dubious best-sellers claim that early Christianity was anti-feminist, it's worth recalling that large numbers of women during these centuries thought otherwise....No world religion has ever given women a more important place than Roman Catholicism.

---

Apart from offering infinitely greater spiritual riches, Christianity gave the ancient world what might be called a New Deal. In the year that Paul arrived in Rome, there was a sensational incident, the sort of thing that today would make the cover of the New York Post. The prefect of Rome, Pedanius Secundus, was murdered by a slave who was jealous of his master's attention to a slave girl. According to Roman law, all the slaves in the household were to be put to death — which in this case meant more than 400 slaves. There were protests, but the emperor and Senate went ahead with the executions. It is not surprising, then, that the "have-nots," who constituted most of the empire, responded to the Christian message that every person has an equal and inherent dignity, and that even the emperor (as St. Ambrose would later explain to Theodosius) was within and not above the law.

Since The Da Vinci Code and other dubious best-sellers claim that early Christianity was anti-feminist, it's worth recalling that large numbers of women during these centuries thought otherwise. The Church's teachings about marriage and family, along with its strictures against divorce, abortion, and the exposure of newborn babies — all of which a pagan husband could force his wife to do, no questions asked — resonated with women who were treated like chattel under the old dispensation. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke goes out of his way to mention female converts like Lydia and Damaris. Even at this early date, women played a key role in the Church's evangelical mission. No world religion has ever given women a more important place than Roman Catholicism. Even Protestantism would turn out to be largely a male enterprise.

  

Preserving the Traditions

These early Christians were conscious of a single responsibility that transcended and sustained all others. They were bound to preserve with the utmost fidelity what had been taught by the apostles. Long before there was a New Testament, there was a deposit of faith concerning the nature of God, His threefold personality, His purpose in making man, the Incarnation. It is already presupposed in the early letters of Paul as well as ancient documents like the Didache. Any departure from these teachings provoked the strongest possible response, and the Acts of the Apostles and most of Paul's letters show the Church facing her first doctrinal and disciplinary problems.

The determination to hold fast to "what has been handed on" (tradere, hence "tradition") is one explanation for the early Christian's veneration of the episcopal office. If there has been a revelation, then there must be an authoritative teaching office to tell us what it is. And so the role of bishops — whose job was, and still is, to teach, govern, and sanctify — was crucial from the beginning.

We do not know the precise details of how the Church's internal authority evolved in the first century. It is one of the most debated points of Church history. Protestants have an obvious bias toward an early congregationalism, but there is little evidence for this. We do know that from the original "twelve" there soon emerged a hierarchical church divided into clergy and laity. It seems that at first there were apostolic delegates, people like Timothy and Titus, who derived their authority from one of the apostles — in this case, Paul. These men governed the local churches under the apostles' direction, and, while some apostles were still on the scene, this arrangement naturally evolved into the college of bishops.

---

What was "primitive Christianity"? John Henry Newman became a Catholic in the course of answering that question. History, he said, is the enemy of Protestantism. It is also the enemy of the newly vigorous anti-Catholicism that circulates among our cultural elites.

---

The seven great letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, written around the year 106 while on his way to Rome to be thrown to the beasts, take for granted the existence of local hierarchical churches, ruled by bishops who are assisted by priests and deacons. Ignatius, a living disciple of John the Apostle, writes that "Jesus Christ...is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ. Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop."

Within each city there was a single church under a bishop, who in turn was assisted by priests in the spiritual realm and deacons in the administrative. The latter devoted themselves especially to alms-giving, and a striking feature of primitive Christianity is its organized benevolence. These local churches were largely self-sufficient but would group around a mother church in the region — Antioch, Alexandria, Rome — and the bishops of each region would occasionally meet in councils. But they all considered themselves part of a universal Church — the Catholic Church, as Ignatius first called it — united in belief, ritual, and regulation.

From the earliest times we find one of these churches exercising a special role, acting as a higher authority and final court of appeal. We don't know much about the early development of the Roman church, and the lists of the first popes are not always consistent. But we do know that around the year 90 a three-man embassy bearing a letter from Rome traveled to Corinth, where there were dissensions in the local church. In that letter, Pope St. Clement speaks with authority, giving instructions in a tone of voice that expects to be obeyed. The interesting point is that the apostle John was still living in Ephesus, which is closer than Rome to Corinth. But it was Rome (at the time, a smaller diocese) that dealt with the problem. Here was the prototype of all future Roman interventions.

It is not difficult to find even liberal Catholic scholars who endorse the early primacy of Rome. In his popular history of the papacy, Saints and Sinners, Eamon Duffy writes that the apostolic succession of the Chair of Peter "rests on traditions which stretch back to the very beginning of the written records of Christianity." Around the year 180, St. Irenaeus, battling heretics who presumed to correct and supplement the Faith with their Gnostic speculations, wrote that if anyone wishes to know true Christian doctrine, he has only to find those churches with a line of bishops going back to one of the apostles. But it is simpler, and suffices, to find out the teaching of the Roman see: "For with this Church all other churches must bring themselves into line, on account of its superior authority."

  

Worship in the Ancient Church

The early Church was not only hierarchical, it was liturgical and sacramental. But it was above all Eucharistic. St. Ignatius, in his letter to the church at Smyrna, attacks local heretics who "abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins...." By the year 150, when St. Justin Martyr described the Sunday liturgy in some detail, all the principal elements of the Mass are in place: Scriptural readings, prayers of intercession, offertory, Eucharistic prayer, and communion. There was no need back then to remind the faithful that Sunday Mass attendance was obligatory, since they regarded the liturgy as absolutely central to their lives as Christians. It would not have occurred to them to forgo Sunday Mass for a brunch date or ballgame.

The readings at these early Masses were from both the Old Testament (then simply called "Scripture") and from many (but not all) of the documents that eventually would comprise the New Testament. And how did the New Testament canon come together? Although some Protestants seem to think otherwise, this was not a spontaneous process. Humanly speaking, it involved a lot of institutional machinery. The 27 books themselves were a kind of providential accident. Christ Himself did not write anything, nor (so far as we know) did He tell His disciples to write anything. There is, after all, something about hearing, rather than just reading, the Christian message. "Faith comes by hearing," writes Paul, who, even though a scholar, does not say "by reading." Books are wonderful evangelical tools, but it is still true that most conversions are brought about by personal witness.

In the ancient Middle East, the preferred medium for passing on the teachings of a religious master was oral, and people had strongly trained memories. Christ spoke in the traditional rhythms of Jewish speech, often using parallelisms that are easy to remember: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The Old Testament is shot through with this kind of mnemonic device. Christ's immediate disciples probably did not write down His words during His lifetime. Being a close-knit Jewish community with a strong oral tradition, they didn't have to.

But as time went by and the Church spread out, the danger of inaccurate reporting grew. This was especially true when Christianity moved into the Greek-speaking cities of Asia Minor and Macedon, where the habit of oral transmission was not strong. So the practice of giving the earliest Christian missionaries little books, or manuals, with the sayings and miracles of Jesus may have arisen. If there was such a document, it has not survived. Yet scholars reasonably posit an ur-document they call Q, which is said to be a sourcebook for the Gospels.

So far so good. But now the mischief begins. For heterodox academics, Q is a wonderfully convenient document. Since we don't have a copy, they can ascribe to it whatever they think authentic in the four Gospels and dismiss everything else as later interpolations. According to this scenario, the Gospel writers took a hard historical document and added a lot of mythology. The Jesus Seminar, which plays the media like a wind instrument, assumes a priori that Jesus was not divine, did not perform miracles, never intended to found a church, and did not take a hard line on extramarital sex. And so it flatly asserts that none of these things was in Q. According to this view, the later Gospels, with their miracles and claims of Christ's divinity, were concocted for selfaggrandizing purposes by power-hungry churchmen.

But we may leave the Jesus Seminar to find out what really happened. First, the scholarly consensus is that the three synoptic Gospels were written much earlier than heterodox "experts" wish us to think: Between 50 and 65 A.D. John's Gospel was written last, perhaps as late as 95, when John, the only apostle not martyred, was a very old man. More than any documents in history, these four books have been the target of the "hermeneutics of suspicion." It is therefore worth pointing out that the four evangelists were closer to their material than were most ancient historians. The biographers of the caesars — Tacitus and Suetonius — were not better placed to get accurate information about their subject than were the evangelists about the life of Christ.

Even though the four Gospel writers differ markedly from one another and have diverse agendas — Matthew is proselytizing his fellow Jews, Luke is fact-gathering for Gentile converts, Mark relates Peter's version of events, John is responding to heresies that deny the Incarnation — the striking thing is how strong, consistent, and identifiable the personality of Christ is in all four books. C. S. Lewis remarks that in all the world's narrative literature, there are three personalities you can identify immediately if given a random and even partial quotation: Plato's Socrates, Boswell's Johnson, and Jesus Christ of the Gospels.

Most of the documents in the New Testament are ad hoc; they address specific issues that arose in the early Church, and none claims to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would someday be read as Holy Scripture. Moreover, there is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of John's apocalypse) claim to be inspired.

Who, then, decided that these books were Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the letters and decrees of two popes and three regional councils near the end of the fourth century that the Catholic Church had a fixed canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were circulating around the Mediterranean basin: The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted, and there were also cogent arguments to jettison the Old Testament. All these issues were sorted out by the hierarchy, and, as Augustine logically remarks, it is only on the authority of the Catholic Church that we accept any book of Scripture.

  

A Theological Parasite

---

To paraphrase Hilaire Belloc, there was no such thing as a religion called "primitive Christianity." There is and always has been the Church, founded by Christ around the year 30 A.D. That Church has always been hierarchical and sacramental. And it saved Western Europe from both pagan barbarism and Eastern nihilism.

---

One set of writings that did not make the canon were the so-called Gnostic gospels, which get such loving attention in PBS documentaries. Ancient Gnosticism is enjoying a bull market among modern intellectuals, but the early Church fought it tooth-and-nail because it correctly perceived how dangerous it was. It was an amorphous creed — an intellectual atmosphere, really — that had its roots in India and Persia. It purported to be a way of knowledge (gnosis), of seizing divine secrets and harnessing divine energies. It solved the problem of evil by claiming that the universe was not God's creation, but the work of a demiurge — some lower god or angel up to no good — and that all physical creation, especially the human body, is intrinsically evil.

Mired in the evil of creation, the Gnostic sought liberation by joining an elite band of believers who through gnosis — arcane speculation, philosophical pirouetting, secret verbal formulas — sought to obtain Promethean control of the spiritual realm. The object was a mystical knowledge that separated the believer not only from the corrupt world but also (and even better) from his neighbors. The initiate, moreover, was above sexual taboos, since the body is of no account. The resulting mixture of hedonism and mystical exclusivity was heady stuff, and the power of Gnosticism to assimilate elements from any source — Platonism, Persian dualism, even Judaism — made it very dangerous when it encountered Christianity and tried to subsume it into a higher and more beguiling synthesis.

Gnosticism's attempt to insert itself into Christianity involved the production of its own scripture, which it tried to smuggle into the Christian canon. The most famous Gnostic text, the Gospel of Thomas, comprises 114 "secret" sayings of Jesus. You don't have to read more than a few of them to recognize that the author has simply skimmed material from the original Gospels and given it a strange "spiritual" twist. Christ is now something of a Magus, a shadowy dispenser of puzzles and gnomic utterances. He bears no resemblance to the Christ of the four evangelists.

In her best-selling books, Pagels makes much of these "forbidden gospels" whose message — despite the occasional anti-feminist hiccup — gives her a fuzzy inner feeling. It seems that the modern Gnostic can retreat into a cozy realm of the spirit and then do whatever he or she pleases. There are no dogmas or commandments to scandalize the post-Christian academic mind. Pagels plays down the intellectual rubbish in these documents, and she's not entirely forthcoming about their elitism and anti-Jewish bias. And finally, it's ridiculous to speak of the Church's exclusion of these spurious second-century documents as a power play by a self-appointed male hierarchy bent on eliminating genuine spiritual impulses. Pagels ought to read the lives of the saints, which include not a few early popes and bishops.

  

How the Church Saved Civilization

The Church did Western civilization a huge favor in beating back these esoteric, anti-humanist ideas, as it would in the 13th century when it crushed the Cathar heresy, another nihilistic doctrine that had blown into Europe on the winds from Persia. In fact, no institution has done more for the surrounding culture than the Catholic Church. And it is identifiably itself from the beginning. To paraphrase Hilaire Belloc, there was no such thing as a religion called "primitive Christianity." There is and always has been the Church, founded by Christ around the year 30 A.D. That Church has always been hierarchical and sacramental. And it saved Western Europe from both pagan barbarism and Eastern nihilism.

In fact, almost everything we value in our civilization — hospitals, museums, universities, the idea of human rights — is by origin Catholic. These things did not come from the Vikings or northern German tribes; they certainly did not come from the Gnostics. But our modern secular culture displays a willful amnesia on the subject of our Catholic patrimony. The technocrats currently drafting a new constitution for the European Union don't even want to hear about it. As Chesterton quipped, first Catholic, then forgotten. Perhaps we can change that by getting out a clearer picture of the splendors and perils of the early Church.

[jo kus]

Do the Orthodox consider them Catholic in the sense of the word found in the Creed?"

As you know, Catholic doesn't only mean "universal", but is the combination of two words that means "the totality of the whole". In other words, Cafeteria Catholic are diametrically opposed to each other. Thus, the question "are monophysites Catholic"? ignores the definition of the full meaning of Catholic, since they don't believe the "whole" faith. Now, if it is a matter of a misunderstanding of words, such as the Coptics, then we drop the term "heretic". But calling the Monophysites catholic - if they still hold to doctrine that is in opposition to the "catholic" stance - would be a contradiction. Earlier, you said that the Monophysites are not considered heretic. Are there other communities that are considered heretical but celebrate a valid Eucharist? If so, are they considered Catholic?

It is distinctly possible that the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican I are in fact heretical, same goes for the Immaculate Conception dogma which arguably denies the human nature of Christ.

I've been reading a lot about Pope Leo the Great lately, a highly venerated saint in Orthodoxy. I find that his actions are in line with the pronouncements made at Vatican 1. He seemed to believe he was the human head of the Church, and his fellow bishops of the East felt the same way. I believe he disproves the idea of some Orthodox who believe in ONLY primacy of honor for the Pope, and this is 600 years before the Schism. As to the Immaculate Conception, the dogma protects the divinity of Jesus, but I don't see how it endangers His humanity. He was born of flesh, even if it was purified by God, He still was/is like us in all ways except sin - the only thing that Mary didn't have, as well. If Augustine thought Mary was sinless (knowing him), I would say the rest of the Church would have agreed with the idea. I think the reason why the Immaculate Conception took so long to promulgate was the Church had other issues to deal with. Now, looking at the 'when', it turned out to be a very good answer to Darwin, who said man was a smart piece of meat, while the Church responded with Our Blessed Lady's purity and our original purpose of creation. Quite a difference between the two stands. If we believe the Church is led by the Spirit, I would say it was an opportune time.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

1. Because Rome and the Orthodox are NOT in communion with each other. Recall, according to you, we are heretics who cannot even receive communion in your churches. That is not even close to comparing Polish and Italian Roman Catholics. I can go to any ethic Roman Catholic Church and receive. Can I go to an Eastern Orthodox Church? No. AGAIN, you are comparing apples and oranges.

2. AGAIN, you seem to think that Rome is the all-powerful, controling, centralized government of the Church, micromanaging everything at the local level. I already told you that this is RARELY done! Consider the Sexual Abuse scandal in the US. If Rome was so all-powerful and ever-controling, explain to me the response? Rome is hands-off in most cases. I sincerely doubt that Rome is going to tell ANY church to stop evangelizing. That is the mission of the Church, to spread the Good News. Perhaps if we were not considered heretics, maybe Rome might then try to curb them in. But again, unless it becomes a major political reason for disunity among our churches, I don't see it happening. Rome has other things to worry about, esp. in Europe. Esp. in the West. If the Orthodox make it a reason for continued separation, I can then see Rome stepping in. Otherwise, I see them not interfering, as their custom.

If the Orthodox want reunification, they need to seriously consider whether Rome is a heretical Church. If so, then its not going to happen.

Regards

[jo kus]

If the Roman Catholic Church were really the deposit of the traditions of the Apostles, it would be Torah-observant instead of making up its own rules as it went along.

Didn't St. Paul say we as Catholics are free of such "observance"? Even Jesus Himself said that the dietary and hand-washing rituals were not important anymore. It is what is inside the man, not the cleanliness of his exterior that counts. And as a Jewish/Christian, you can appreciate that the Church has been given the power to bind and loosen? For example, see Acts 15 for this power in action - all in Scripture.

Regards

[x5452]

1. The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is proposing and END TO THE SCHISM AND A UNION. The Moscow Patriarchiate is NOT PROPOSING ONE. They are being PETETIONED TO BY CATHOLICS SAYING WE ARE ALREADY ONE CHURCH. You cannt say WE ARE ONE and simutaenously be converting the converted and challanging ownership of church buildings. That is completely against the spirit of union and it is tearing faithful communities apart out of a selfish desire for more funds and more political influence by the Uniate church. You cannot say you are working to heal when you are tearing things apart.

2. If Rome had intervened early and absolutly in the clergy abuse scandal thousands of Catholic faithful wouldn't be leaving the church or just not going. That scandal has done the most to weaken the Catholic faith since Catholicism came to America.

The Orthodox DO NOT want unification they really don't give a hoot one way or the other. Moscow didn't send Metropolitan Kirill begging for union with the Catholics. The pope send Cardinal Kasper asking the Moscow Patriarchiate for unification. The burden is on the Catholic church to prove it wants healing not more hurt.

[Kolokotronis]

"I've been reading a lot about Pope Leo the Great lately, a highly venerated saint in Orthodoxy. I find that his actions are in line with the pronouncements made at Vatican 1. He seemed to believe he was the human head of the Church, and his fellow bishops of the East felt the same way. I believe he disproves the idea of some Orthodox who believe in ONLY primacy of honor for the Pope, and this is 600 years before the Schism. As to the Immaculate Conception, the dogma protects the divinity of Jesus, but I don't see how it endangers His humanity."

+Leo the Great is indeed a saint of the Orthodox Church, and a great one. That does not mean at all that he was infallible. Did the other bishops of the time see him as the primus? Absolutely. Did they see him as a sort of guarantor of Orthodoxy? Absolutely. Did they see him as a sort of human symbol of unity? Absolutely. Did they believe that he had a specific universal jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs and bishops? Absolutely not. Did they see him as being infallible in sese? Absolutely not. You may well be right that the dogmas proclaimed by Vatican I are in accord with what +Leo thought of himself. But they are not in accord with what the bishops of Leo's times believed or what Orthodoxy believes at this time. In fact, Vatican I doesn't even express the belief of all the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. It didn't then and it doesn't now. I think it is a given that Orthodoxy will not subscribe to Vatican I as presently worded or interpreted. If the Roman Church were intent on pressing the point, there would be no reason to continue any discussion of unity. But it is equally apparent that our hierarchs and theologians are intent on pursuing these discussions which indicates to me that they believe that a reformulated understanding of the Petrine Office, by means of a Great Council, is possible within the context of the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican I. I don't know what that would be, nor I suspect, do they but they seem confident that it can be found at least to the point of calling such a council.

As for the Immaculate Conception, the argument is that if Panagia was "conceived without the stain of Original Sin", then it follows that she was ontologically different from all rest of humanity from conception. In one sense this is true. The Fathers are unanimous in their understanding that she was chosen by God before time to be the Theotokos. In the more specific sense of being "preserved" from Original Sin, however, she becomes something other than human and the Fathers are quite clear that she was fully human. If she did not share the "distortions" of the Sin of Adam, then two problems arise. First, she had no need of the theosis made available to us through the Incarnation, yet the Fathers are quite clear that she was saved by the Incarnation and second, Christ was born of something other than a human being. That's the problem with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

My personal opinion is that the dogma was made necessary by the error of +Augustine about the Sin of Adam in the first place. Take away that doctrine, and the need for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception evaporates.

Finally, as for the Monophysites, I probably shouldn't even have used the word. The "Non Chalcedonian" Christians have pretty much always said that was an incorrect and divisive term which does violence to their theology. So far as I can tell, Orthodoxy is coming around to accepting the truth and justice of that position. Clearly, if there are true Monophysites out there, they are indeed heretics and are not part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[Pyro7480]

In the more specific sense of being "preserved" from Original Sin, however, she becomes something other than human and the Fathers are quite clear that she was fully human. If she did not share the "distortions" of the Sin of Adam, then two problems arise. First, she had no need of the theosis made available to us through the Incarnation, yet the Fathers are quite clear that she was saved by the Incarnation and second, Christ was born of something other than a human being. That's the problem with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Have you read Blessed Pius IX's dogmatic declaration on the Immaculate Conception? From what I have gathered, the Immaculata had the graces of the Incarnation, Passion, and Death of Our Lord applied to her at her conception, since the fruits of His Redemptive work are for all eternity. The dogma also affirms that she is indeed a creature.

[jo kus]

In one sense, we are "already" one Church, just as we are "one" with the Protestant communities. The Church says that we are imperfectly united with such communities as the protestants who share in some of our beliefs, read our Scriptures, and in some cases, partake in our practices. Regarding the Orthodox, we share that much more because we are both Apostolic, and we can also call each other "Church" because we have the Eucharist. But in another sense, we are NOT one, because the Orthodox are NOT in union with the keeper of the Keys, the man given authority over the sheep in the absence of Christ. In the Gospels, Christ tells of several parables that talk about the servant who is left to watch, who will be held accountable, to watch while the Master is away. Christ gave this authority to all the Apostles, and to Peter in a special way. By leaving the Church founded by Christ, founded on the Rock, we cannot be one in the Catholic sense of the word.

I personally don't know enough of the situation regarding the "Uniate" churches. All I can say is that man should have freedom of religion, to choose his faith in coming to God. If a Russian wants to be Catholic, why is he persecuted? He cannot of good faith even receive the Body of Christ, for heavens sake! I see the Orthodox bullying the Catholic "Uniate" Churches into being disbanded so there is a monopoly of belief. If man is to have freedom of religion, doesn't it make sense that they be allowed to co-exist? If there is a reunification, then we can talk about tearing down redundant churches. But until then, they are serving the people who desire to be Catholic and not Orthodox. How would the Orthodox react if the Catholic Church was the state Church in the US and began to complain about the Orthodox Churches being built here?

If Rome had intervened early and absolutly in the clergy abuse scandal thousands of Catholic faithful wouldn't be leaving the church or just not going. That scandal has done the most to weaken the Catholic faith since Catholicism came to America.

Those of weak faith have certainly been scandalized. But those who believe that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and that there would be weeds among the wheat in the Church did not lose their faith. We were disappointed, but our faith is based on the historical claim made by the Apostles, not having to be reaffirmed every year by the holiness of the priests. That heresy (Donatism) was refuted 1500 years ago by St. Augustine and others.

Should the Vatican have responded more quickly? The question I ask you is why do you complain about the Vatican's supposed micromanaging, but when some heresy or moral problem surfaces, and you desire a quick response? Why the hypocrisy? This is the typical response from someone who has the attitude that "I don't need the Papacy", until there is a heresy... Look to our history, brother. Apparently, the Vatican expected the American bishops to take care of the problem. Who could have known that the Bishops were a major cause of the problem? Don't blame the Vatican, blame the American Bishops who see their office as a business manager rather than a guardian and protector of the faith.

The Orthodox DO NOT want unification they really don't give a hoot one way or the other.

If that is really true, then the Orthodox are not concerned with Christ's desire that we be one. The Catholic Church is reaching out. It must be admitted that the Schism was the result of BOTH sides. Thus, admitting this, BOTH sides should be holding out the hand of forgiveness and accepting forgiveness. Recall the Lord's Prayer - forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US. How many times does Jesus tell Peter to forgive? Again, if Orthodoxy claims to be following Christ, they need to consider that Christians are called to forgive those who ask for it, not to continue to hold 1000 year grudges.

Regards

[Kolokotronis]

"Have you read Blessed Pius IX's dogmatic declaration on the Immaculate Conception?"

Oh yes, I've read it as have real Orthodox theologians (as opposed to country lawyers dabbling in it!:))Like I said, it seems to be a result of the base problem created by +Augustine's formulation of Original Sin. To my eyes, the declaration is internally inconsistent but again undoubtedly necessary if one wishes to preserve +Augustine's innovation.

One fascinating side light to all of this is that the declaration, one way or the other, seems to have had no effect on how we all respond to Panagia. Of course, that is because it really speaks to the nature of Christ and the Incarnation fundamentally.

[Pyro7480]

Would the title "Spouse of the Holy Ghost" be improper for her in Orthodoxy?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Interesting stuff bump.

[jo kus]

First, I agree with your statements regarding Leo the Great. My mentioning him was only to refute those others who believe that "papal primacy" is a non-existent thing that didn't come into being until the Popes felt the need to expand their power. I see the East, during times of heresy, as very GLAD that the Pope was there. Their writings, such men as Athanasius, John Crysostom, and Maximus the Confessor, are clear that Rome is indeed the guardian of the true faith and defended it against the quite often heretical Eastern Roman Emperor and his lackies. As I have mentioned before also, I agree that Vatican 1 needs some re-working. That is fine, as dogmatic declarations CAN be re-worded to better represent what we believe TODAY. The formula itself merely explains the infallible belief. If there is a better way to address Papal Infallibility, then fine. As I have also said before, we should come together to discuss what exactly was the relationship between the Pope and the Bishops in 300-750, before relations soured. My issue is with people who totally refuse to accept ANY Papal primacy. Christ didn't give Peter the keys as a figurehead. Peter's proclamation of who Christ was was given to Him by GOD. Thus, we believe, God continues to protect Peter in times of disunity and heresy. Again, the question is, "how much 'power' did the Lord intend for His servant?" I am hopeful that an agreement can be reached on this issue.

In the more specific sense of being "preserved" from Original Sin, however, she becomes something other than human and the Fathers are quite clear that she was fully human. If she did not share the "distortions" of the Sin of Adam, then two problems arise. First, she had no need of the theosis made available to us through the Incarnation, yet the Fathers are quite clear that she was saved by the Incarnation and second, Christ was born of something other than a human being. That's the problem with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

These issues were raised by Thomas Aquinas, but solved after his death by Scotus. First, Mary was prevented from inheriting original sin with the idea that the Incarnation and Redemption of Our Lord would retroactively save Mary - just as the OT saints were. Just as Elijah was saved by the Incarnation, so was Mary. And secondly, if Mary was no longer human BECAUSE of being pure, then you are saying Christ, also, is no longer human. THAT is heresy. Christ, the perfect man, proves that sin is not part of our original nature. Thus, Mary cannot be called "other than human" BECAUSE she was created in man's original nature, just as the Word became Flesh did not have this stain. If Christ was the Second Adam, born without sin, then Mary, too, was the Second Eve, also born without sin. This goes back to Justin the Martyr and Ireneaus, both of the second century AD.

My personal opinion is that the dogma was made necessary by the error of +Augustine about the Sin of Adam in the first place.

I glanced at this teaching but I don't recall the defense of it entirely. I do remember that Augustine was quoting from many of his predecessors, Tertullian, Clement, and Ireneaus, for example, when he was defending the concept of original sin vs. the Pelagians, who didn't believe in it. The only thing I believe you reject is that man has acquired a guilt as a result. If memory serves me, I believe Augustine then asked, "why do you baptize infants, then, for the forgiveness of sins?" Again, lex orendi, lex credendi. I would have to look up some more on this if you wanted to continue this conversation. But right now, I am not convinced that Augustine was in error on this, or that he was the only one who believed in the transferance of guilt (which is not the same as that of actual sin). More work by me will be needed.

Brother in Christ

[jo kus]

Have you read Blessed Pius IX's dogmatic declaration on the Immaculate Conception? From what I have gathered, the Immaculata had the graces of the Incarnation, Passion, and Death of Our Lord applied to her at her conception, since the fruits of His Redemptive work are for all eternity. The dogma also affirms that she is indeed a creature.

Exactly. Since the OT prophets were saved by the Incarnation "retroactively", so was Mary. Christ's work saves those of the past, present and future.

Brother in Christ

[x5452]

In one sense, we are "already" one Church, just as we are "one" with the Protestant communities.

I don't believe we are one with protestant communities. You can't believe you're right and the people believe you are wrong are also right. There is one true faith, and the protestants rebel against that.

The Church says that we are imperfectly united with such communities as the protestants who share in some of our beliefs, read our Scriptures, and in some cases, partake in our practices.

Having someone who regularly commits an abominable sin (a homosexual) bless the 'Eucharist' is sacrilegious. It is certainly not sharing the beliefs of the true church. The protestant Churches rebel against the true faith and preach false doctrines.

Regarding the Orthodox, we share that much more because we are both Apostolic, and we can also call each other "Church" because we have the Eucharist. But in another sense, we are NOT one, because the Orthodox are NOT in union with the keeper of the Keys, the man given authority over the sheep in the absence of Christ.

The man you speak of is a heretical belief of the Catholic church against the definition of primacy in the councils.

In the Gospels, Christ tells of several parables that talk about the servant who is left to watch, who will be held accountable, to watch while the Master is away. Christ gave this authority to all the Apostles, and to Peter in a special way. By leaving the Church founded by Christ, founded on the Rock, we cannot be one in the Catholic sense of the word.

The pope has not been of the line of Peter for QUITE some time.

I personally don't know enough of the situation regarding the "Uniate" churches. All I can say is that man should have freedom of religion, to choose his faith in coming to God. If a Russian wants to be Catholic, why is he persecuted?

That's the thing he DOESN'T want to be Catholic. The uniate church sets up churches in Orthodox areas and puts pressure on all to join. They fight the Orthodox legally distributing lands, distributing their license to have a church, and the try spiritually to call Orthodox clergy away from the Orthodox church and into the Uniate church, and they try politically trying to ban the Moscow Patriarchate, and promising the Uniate church will be more powerful because it will be in communion with Rome. It is an intentional escalation of conflict. The Catholic church does not care that these people already have a church and already believe the apostolic faith, they care that their money is going to Russia and not the Vatican, and they care they have not confessed the heretical Pope as the head of the church instead of Christ.

He cannot of good faith even receive the Body of Christ, for heavens sake! I see the Orthodox bullying the Catholic "Uniate" Churches into being disbanded so there is a monopoly of belief. If man is to have freedom of religion, doesn't it make sense that they be allowed to co-exist? If there is a reunification, then we can talk about tearing down redundant churches. But until then, they are serving the people who desire to be Catholic and not Orthodox. How would the Orthodox react if the Catholic Church was the state Church in the US and began to complain about the Orthodox Churches being built here?

There is no where that the orthodox are standing outside Catholic churches seducing and threatening Catholic faithful into their church by dressing their clergy up as Latin Rite clergy and performing a psudo-latin Rite. The reverse is what the Uniate church has been doing for years.

Those of weak faith have certainly been scandalized. But those who believe that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and that there would be weeds among the wheat in the Church did not lose their faith. We were disappointed, but our faith is based on the historical claim made by the Apostles, not having to be reaffirmed every year by the holiness of the priests. That heresy (Donatism) was refuted 1500 years ago by St. Augustine and others.

You completely overlook the most practical matter. Parents of a molested child, and parents who see a child in their parish was molested by a priest do not give a hoot what the man in Rome says he believes in the care about the fact the faith is absent from the parish they trusted. And they mortally fear any other parish may also be secretly allowing this behavior. They then have 4 options. Remain catholic in their homes with no parish, turn to orthodoxy, turn to protestantism, or turn to atheism.

Should the Vatican have responded more quickly? The question I ask you is why do you complain about the Vatican's supposed micromanaging, but when some heresy or moral problem surfaces, and you desire a quick response? Why the hypocrisy?

I have YET to criticize micromanaging! I have in fact asked why the Roman church REFUSES TO MICROMANAGE AND DE-ESCALATE IN THE UNIATE SITUATION EVEN AFTER REPEATED PROMISES FROM THE POPE.

This is the typical response from someone who has the attitude that "I don't need the Papacy", until there is a heresy... Look to our history, brother. Apparently, the Vatican expected the American bishops to take care of the problem. Who could have known that the Bishops were a major cause of the problem? Don't blame the Vatican, blame the American Bishops who see their office as a business manager rather than a guardian and protector of the faith.

You are equating any exercise of patriarchal power with primacy which is ridiculous. The ability to act within a patriarch's own jurisdiction is not the ability to rule the church. The uniate church answers to the patriarch of Rome. It is not only Rome's ability to intervene it is it's responsibility to do so.

The Orthodox DO NOT want unification they really don't give a hoot one way or the other.

If that is really true, then the Orthodox are not concerned with Christ's desire that we be one. The Catholic Church is reaching out. It must be admitted that the Schism was the result of BOTH sides. Thus, admitting this, BOTH sides should be holding out the hand of forgiveness and accepting forgiveness. Recall the Lord's Prayer - forgive us our trespasses AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US. How many times does Jesus tell Peter to forgive? Again, if Orthodoxy claims to be following Christ, they need to consider that Christians are called to forgive those who ask for it, not to continue to hold 1000 year grudges.

This is not about forgiveness this is about continuing and capitulating to heresy or standing strong against it. It is a protestant notion that all churches should be united on the basis of a simple belief Christ existed. By contrast the Catholic church believes churches should be united *under strict catholic doctrine*. The Catholic church will not rest until the Orthodox churches confess a man, elected by men, is on the same level as Christ. The Orthodox church will never accept that.

[x5452]

From the OCA Q & A:
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=4&SID=3

St. Augustine & Original Sin
Printer Friendly Format
QUESTION:

Is it true, as I have been told, that the Orthodox Church does not celebrate Augustine of Hippo as a Saint and has no doctrine of original sin.

Surely human sufficience is at the root of secularism.


ANSWER:

While the Orthodox Church does accord Augustine of Hippo the title "saint" and recognizes the vast number of theological works he produced, Augustine was not as well known in the Christian East. His works were not translated into Greek until the 14th century; as such, he had little or no influence on mainstream Orthodox thought until 17th century Ukraine and 18th century Russia, primarily through the influence of western clergy and the establishment of theological schools which relied on Latin models with respect to curricula, text books, etc.

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West may be outlined as follows:

In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair."

In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

One might look at all of this in a completely different light. Imagine, if you will, that one of your close relatives was a mass murderer. He committed many serious crimes for which he was found guilty ­ and perhaps even admitted his guilt publicly. You, as his or her son or brother or cousin, may very well bear the consequences of his action - people may shy away from you or say, "Watch out for him - he comes from a family of mass murderers." Your name may be tainted, or you may face some other forms of discrimination as a consequence of your relative’s sin. You, however, are not personally guilty of his or her sin.

There are some within Orthodoxy who approach a westernized view of sin, primarily after the 17th and 18th centuries due to a variety of westernizing influences particularly in Ukraine and Russia after the time of Peter Mohyla. These influences have from time to time colored explanations of the Orthodox Faith which are in many respects lacking.

[jo kus]

I don't believe we are one with protestant communities. You can't believe you're right and the people believe you are wrong are also right. There is one true faith, and the protestants rebel against that.

I didn't say they were united with us completely. We DO share common elements of the faith - and thus, they ARE part of the Church in a remote manner. This is Scriptural and part of Apostolic Tradition. Yes, there is one ENTIRELY TRUE faith, called Catholic, but all religions possess SOME truth. Protestants possess a greater part of the truth then say, Muslims.

The protestant Churches rebel against the true faith and preach false doctrines.

Yes. the Church says they MAY be invincibly ignorant - and thus, God can still reach out to them. Remember, the Sacraments are the ORDINARY means of grace coming to us. The Spirit blows where He wills, saving EVEN Protestants and Muslims, if He chooses. God wrote a Law on even the hearts of Gentiles, says Paul. Thus, if a man, outside of the visible Church, follows that law on his heart, loving his neighbor and God to the best of his knowledge and ability, are you saying God will decline to offer him salvation? Then why would God inscribe His Law on that Gentile's heart in the first place?

The man you speak of is a heretical belief of the Catholic church against the definition of primacy in the councils.

As an Orthodox, you should know that Councils are not the only means of teaching. What about the "sense of the faithful"? I thought the Orthodox especially believed that the local Churches were empowered by the Spirit and that Councils merely finalized what was already believed. This is the Catholic faith. We, as individuals, are guided by the Spirit. We worshiped Christ 300 years BEFORE a Council declared Him God. Thus, our beliefs LEAD Counciliar documents. By looking to the actual history of events, we can see that, for example, Leo the Great had POWER to make determinations of doctrine WITHOUT Counciliar permission. HE excommunicated heretical bishops. HE declared the Robber Council of Ephesus as null and void! HE is the man that BISHOPS wrote to asking for pardon, asking for council, asking for aid against heretics. It was HE whom the heretics wrote to to try to get their definitions accepted - they KNEW that if they could get Rome to sign off on it, then it would be accepted. Again, I tell you, that's the way it was. There was no need for a Counciliar declaration of this BECAUSE EVERYONE KNEW IT TO BE VALID ACTION! The only time a Council is called on a subject is when there is DISAGREEMENT. Thus, the Church has always believed in the Papal primacy - whatever that means - NOT mere Papal "honor". That doesn't BEGIN to explain the actions of the Eastern Bishops throughout the first 700 years of Christianity. They understood the role of Peter, so there was no need to define it.

This is not about forgiveness this is about continuing and capitulating to heresy or standing strong against it. It is a protestant notion that all churches should be united on the basis of a simple belief Christ existed. By contrast the Catholic church believes churches should be united *under strict catholic doctrine*. The Catholic church will not rest until the Orthodox churches confess a man, elected by men, is on the same level as Christ. The Orthodox church will never accept that.

Are you so sure that Catholics are heretics? Are you aware of your own Church's history? Read up on the history of Pope Leo the Great. How he acted and how his actions were accepted - no - gratefully accepted - by the East. And now, that you feel you don't need a Pope (even though you can't convene an Ecumenical Council while Rome can), you call US heretics?

By the way, how clear do I and others have to make it to you that the Pope is not equal to Christ? We don't teach it, we don't believe it, that's not how it works. If you would like to continue believing this idiocy, that is your problem. If it makes you feel better that we are heretics for something we don't teach, God be with you... But please refrain from bringing it up here. It is a straw man that frankly, I tire of.

Regards

[x5452]

The orthodox beleive the head of the church is Christ period. There is no need for a man to take the role Christ has for 2000+ years.

Revising the creed unilaterly that was decided at the councils goes beyond the scope of the primacy. Yes the primacy had power, no it was not absolute. No it was not infailable with regard to doctrine.

Yes I am sure that anyone who must first confess the absolute authority of the bishop of Rome, as well as his false doctrines, before he can come to the church is a heretic.

[x5452]

From orthodoxwiki:

Primacy and Unity in Orthodox Ecclesiology

The question of universal primacy is a central ecclesiological issue of our time. According to Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon, “The issue of primacy is perhaps the most important ecumenical problem.”[1] A recent agreed statement of the World Councils of Churches shows that, while some degree of ecumenical consensus exists on the issue, much work remains to be done:
Whenever people, local communities or regional churches come together to take counsel and make important decisions, there is need for someone to summon and preside over the gathering for the sake of good order and to help the process of promoting, discerning and articulating consensus. Synods and councils of all times and in all churches demonstrate this clearly. The one who presides is always to be at the service of those among whom he presides for the edification of the Church of God, in love and truth. It is the duty of the president to respect the integrity of local churches, to give voice to the voiceless and to uphold unity in diversity.[2]
[edit]
Primacy in Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue

Papal primacy is often recognized as the greatest single issue dividing the Eastern and Western churches. Fr. John Meyendorff wrote that “The whole ecclesiological debate between East and West is thus reducible to the issue of whether the faith depends on Peter, or Peter on the faith.”[3] Pope Paul VI said that “the pope…is undoubtedly the most serious obstacle on the path of ecumenism.”[4]
Primacy is an especially pertinent issue in Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue. This is not only the case because discussions of primacy naturally begin with the Roman Catholic concept as a point of departure, but also because of some important recent developments. In the 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II wrote:
Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy….I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation (§95).
However skeptical one may be about the actual application of the Pope’s words, nevertheless such openness to dialogue is unprecedented. Many Orthodox theologians have felt a need to respond thoughtfully, for, as Fr. John Meyendorff writes, “the issue placed by the papacy before the consciousness of all Christians is that of a world Christian witness.”[5]
[edit]
Primacy and Communion Ecclesiology
In order to provide some context, it is worth noting that an important concept underlying much of the ecumenical discussion on the subject of primacy is “communion ecclesiology.” Popular in ecumenical circles, it has been enthusiastically accepted by Catholics and Orthodox, who are also responsible for laying some of its basic foundations. Zizioulas, for example, in his book Being as Communion draws on the Eastern Church Fathers to define Christian life within the framework of “communion.”
The Orthodox-Roman Catholic Bilateral Consultation in the U.S.A. issued “An Agreed Statement On The Church” in 1974 which describes the basic premise of “communion ecclesiology”: “The Church is the communion of believers living in Jesus Christ and the Spirit with the Father. It has its origin and prototype in the Trinity in which there is both distinction of persons and unity based on love, not subordination.”[6] This is further illustrated in a document published in 1982 by the Joint International Commission entitled “The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity.”[7]
The influence of this kind of ecclesiological outlook is fundamental to many modern discussions of primacy. For example, Zizioulas writes:
For such a primacy to be accepted and applied an ecclesiology of communion rooted deeply in a theology, and even an ontology of communion, would be necessary. I believe that the 2nd Vatican Council has made an historic advance in this direction, and we can proceed in the deepening of such a theology of communion and apply it to all matters still dividing us, including that of the Roman primacy.[8]
[edit]
Many feel a need for Primacy
When John Paul II proposed the question, “Do not many of those involved in ecumenism today feel a need for such a ministry?”[9] in 1995, many Orthodox answered strongly in the affirmative. The question of primacy is not only an important ecumenical topic, but a need to examine the issue is keenly felt within Orthodoxy. Fr. Meyendorff states:
A united witness of the universal episcopate of the Church is not simply a pragmatic necessity, but a sign that the Holy Spirit did not abandon the Church… the unity and coherence of [the Church’s] witness, the service to the world which it implies, the common action which it requires, can be assured only if the episcopate remains one. The function of the “first bishop” is to serve that unity on the world scale, just as the function of a regional primate is to be the agent of unity on a regional scale.[10]
The need for a united witness of the Church is a primary consideration. Many have called for renewed thinking about the very concept of primacy itself.
[edit]
An Orthodox Vision of Primacy

In what ways does the Orthodox understanding of primacy differ from the Roman Catholic view? The Orthodox perspective is rooted in principles drawn from the early canonical tradition. It is worth mentioning that even within Orthodoxy the question deals first and foremost, because of historical considerations, with the legitimate primacy exercised by Rome before the schism.
[edit]
The Theological Necessity of Primacy
Orthodoxy has never accepted Rome’s self-supported claims of universal jurisdiction, but has always rebuffed them. A closer examination, however, reveals the many subtleties of the issue. As Thomas FitzGerald wrote, “Orthodox theologians have not rejected the concept of primacy, but only its development by the Church of Rome.”[11]
An understanding of corporate personality is important for any study of primacy. Zizioulas writes: “The idea of the incorporation of the ‘many’ into the ‘one,’ or of the ‘one’ as a representative of the ‘many’ goes back to a time earlier than Paul.”[12] More directly, he says, “Bishops are not to be understood as individuals, but as heads of communities.”[13] This would necessitate a single representative showing forth the unity of the episcopate. There is another important point here: that primacy belongs to a see, not to an individual. As Zizioulas states: “In an ecclesiology of communion, we have not a communion of individuals, but of churches.”[14]
The Orthodox understanding of primacy is rooted in the need for taxis. Meyendorff explains:
It is a fact, however, that there has never been a time when the Church did not recognize a certain “order” among first the apostles, then the bishops, and that, in this order, one apostle, St. Peter, and later, one bishop, heading a particular church, occupied the place of a “primate.”[15]
Zizioulas says that the question of Roman primacy must be approached theologically rather than historically; if primacy was only contingent on historical developments, then it could not be viewed as a necessity for the Church.[16] His question is, does Roman Primacy belong to the esse of the Church or is it only for her bene esse?
[edit]
Hierarchy and Concilliarity
Fr. Schmemann wrote: “hierarchy is the very form of concilliarity.”[17] He sees this as mirroring the divine life of the Trinity. Hierarchy and concilliarity should not be opposed, but go together: “the hierarchical principle belongs to the very essence of the council…”[18], and Orthodox church government must be rooted in a “concilliar ontology.” [19] Zizioulas maintains that “The synodal system is a ‘sine qua non conditio’ for the catholicity of the Church.”[20]
Schmemann explains this well: “hierarchy is, above everything else, the mutual recognition of persons in their unique, personal qualifications, of their unique place and function in relation to other persons, of their objective and unique vocation within concilliar life. The principle of hierarchy implies the idea of obedience but not that of subordination…”[21] He concludes: “To oppose these two principles is to deviate from the Orthodox understanding of both hierarchy and council.”[22]
[edit]
Multiple levels of Primacy
This synodal structure is essential for the whole Church, going much deeper than the universal level. “At the local, regional, and global levels of the Church’s life, primatial leadership exists to build up the unity of the Church and the communion of sister Churches.”[23] Our main concern here will be with universal, rather than regional primacy, or primacy as exercised within an autocephalous church. The system of Patriarchates comes closer, but is still not quite what we are looking at. Zizioulas demonstrates that this system, no matter how venerable and ancient, was never theological in a strict sense.[24]
[edit]
The fundamental identity of the episcopate
Professor John Erickson points out that the Orthodox understand all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome, to be the successors of Peter, and mentions that Patriarch Bartholomew has recently reiterated his explicit rejection of the Catholic interpretation of the “keys of Peter.”[25] In Orthodox ecclesiology, all bishops possess a fundamental equality, even if, because of practical reasons, some are given a higher position than others. This is an example of where Orthodox ecclesiology differs from Roman Catholic teaching in an important way.
[edit]
Primacy of honor not without authority
Metropolitan John Zizioulas says that the phrase “primacy of honor” often used by Orthodox may be misleading, because the exercise of primacy necessarily involves actual duties and responsibilities.[26] The primacy exercised by the Patriarch of Constantinople, for example, has included such things as the right to convoke councils in cooperation with the other Patriarchs, and an emergency right of intervention when help is requested by another Patriarchate:[27]
“In response to the present Roman Catholic understanding of the Petrine Office, Orthodox theologians have not rejected the concept of primacy but only its development by the Church of Rome. Among the Orthodox, there has been an attempt to recognize the various expressions of primatial leadership in the life of the Church, and to place primacy within the framework of concilliarity.”[28]
Professor Erickson points out that for the Orthodox, Roman primacy has been understood as a pragmatic, rather than theological, issue, growing out of a principle of accommodation.[29] Honor and primacy must be linked to ministry and service, and the Pope must function as head of his see, as one who is among, rather than over, the other bishops. Again, primacy involves more than simply “honor,” but is linked to a universal pastoral concern, a “presidency in love.” This means leadership, not juridical authority.[30]
[31] they nevertheless contain principles applicable to universal primacy as well. Zonaras observes:
“Just as bodies, if the head does not maintain its activity in good health, function faultily or are completely useless, so also the body of the Church, if its preeminent member, who occupies the position of head, is not maintained in his proper honor, functions in a disorderly and faulty manner.”[32]
Zonaras also mentions the prime importance of harmony among all, bound together by the bond of love.[33]
From the time of the first Ecumenical Council on, Byzantine canon law had always assigned primacy of honor to Rome, for example Nicea canon 6.[34] Even when the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople, the “new Rome,” the priority of the old Rome was safeguarded. Constantinople 3 states: “As for the Bishop of Constantinople, let him have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city is the new Rome.”[35] Even when Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor Alexis I, tried to interpret “after” in a purely chronological sense, she was corrected by both Zonaras and Balsamon, who maintained that “after” certainly shows hierarchical inferiority.[36]
Meyendorff summarizes the “privileges” spoken of in Constantinople canon 3:
…this ministry was always understood in moral terms, rather than in terms of formal power, or rights. The actual exercise of this power depended upon political circumstances, as well as the orthodoxy, the wisdom, and the prestige of the “first bishop” himself… it is only when the “Old Rome” decisively and consistently pretended to transform its moral “privilege” into actual jurisdictional and doctrinal power that the Orthodox East refused to allow it.[37]
Chalcedon canon 28 is also notable. It says, in part:
The fathers in fact have correctly attributed the prerogatives to the see of the most ancient Rome because it was the imperial city. And thus moved by the same reasoning, [we] have accorded equal prerogatives to the very holy see of New Rome, justly considering that the city is honored by the imperial power and the senate and enjoying the prerogatives equal to those of old Rome, the most ancient imperial city, ought to be elevated as Old Rome in the affairs of the Church, being in the second place after it.[38]
[edit]
The Principle of Accommodation
Notice that the phrase “because it was the imperial city” lends no credence to any argument for primacy based on apostolic foundation.[39] Meyendorff also makes the point that there were many cities of apostolic origin in the East, none of which claimed primatial authority. He writes: “Antioch, Corinth, Thessalonica, and many other churches were founded by apostles, but never claimed primacy based on this fact.”[40] But he is quick to point out that such accommodation is not the only criterion.[41]
[edit]
What if Roman Primacy were Reinstated?

There are a variety of approaches to what a resuscitated Roman primacy would look like. Erickson writes that it might be possible for the Orthodox to accept the view of Papal primacy which developed in the West in the second millennium as legitimate within its historical context.[42] He says that “Agreement in principle on some aspects of primacy may be on the horizon.”[43] He describes Ut Unum Sint as a welcome sign which has reopened discussion of primacy,[44] and calls for a “deeper exploration of the meaning of primacy for the ongoing life of the Church…”[45]
Zizioulas makes that point that “A universal primus exercising his primacy in such a way is not only useful to the Church but an ecclesiological necessity in a unified Church.”[46]
He says that ascribing universal primacy to Rome would not be problematic if it was “fundamentally qualified.”[47] For him, this means that Rome should not interfere in the autonomous life of the other Churches, and that primacy should be exercised in a synodical context, acting in consensus with the other bishops in matters that concern more than just the local (or regional) church. He discounts the view that a revived Roman primacy would be merely a “Western Patriarchate,” and points out some of the problems that arise if Rome is viewed as merely “Western.” It would be too confusing a “scheme of division” and could not claim a theological raison d’être.[48]
He presents an articulate vision of what a Roman primacy along Orthodox lines would mean:
…the universal primacy of the Church of Rome would mean in the first instance that the Bishop of Rome will be in cooperation on all matters pertaining to the Church as a whole with the existing patriarchs and other heads of autocephalous churches. His primacy would be exercised in communion, not in isolation or directly over the entire Church. He would be the President of all heads of churches and the spokesman of the entire Church once the decisions announced are the result of consensus.
[edit]
In Summary
Bishop Kallistos Ware points out two short formulae that may be helpful in summing up the eastern attitude towards primacy: “Among the bishops, the pope is the elder brother, in the absence of the father”, and, “The pope is the mouth of the Church and of the episcopate.”[49] These two pithy sayings capture in many ways the approach many Orthodox would take toward this topic.
[edit]
Primacy within Orthodoxy Today

Our historical understanding of Roman Primacy is one thing, but how do we understand the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch today? For, as Meyendorff states, “After the schism, Constantinople was left with primacy in Orthodoxy.”[50] There remains a need to look at some of these difficulties posed by the question of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the modern Orthodox world.
Surely it is not enough to rest on history. Fr. John Meyendorff states: “…since Byzantium does not exist anymore, it is simply meaningless to attempt a definition of the rights of the ecumenical patriarchate in Byzantine terms.”[51]
Michael Fahey describes the contemporary functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Patriarch is elected by an endemousa (permanent) synod of twelve members, presided over by the Patriarch. “The synod addresses matters of moment to the patriarchate and, because of the primacy of this patriarchal church, it also discusses many far-reaching matters crucial to the life of Orthodoxy worldwide.”[52] Fahey outlines four ways the Ecumenical patriarch, along with his synod, has exercised primacy in recent years: 1) promotion of Orthodox unity and pan-Orthodox cooperation. 2) by agreeing to hear appeals from other local churches. 3) through ecumenical initiatives, and 4) through pastoral care of the diaspora.
[edit]
The ministry of unity
Among the four functions enumerated by Fahey, two have to do with the ministry of unity. One concern here is the question of who should speak for the Orthodox. Thomas FitzGerald, in a booklet entitled The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Christian Unity discusses the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch within Orthodoxy as its visible representative and spokesman. A statement in the front of the book by Patriarch Bartholomew reads: “Our Ecumenical Throne is fully aware of its historic heritage and of its responsibility, by the Grace of God, to do whatever is possible, to serve the unity of the Church”[53]
[edit]
Synodal organization
The danger in having an endemousa synod is that it would not be truly representative. Meyendorff has stated: “In some churches…the so-called ‘permanent synod’ ceased to promote concilliarity and has become an organ of bureaucratic administration exercising power over other bishops.”[54] He presents what he thinks such a synod today should look like. He says: “The normal functioning of an Orthodox primacy in the modern world would clearly require a permanent representation of all Orthodox churches in a consultative body around the patriarch and, in general, an international staff.”[55]
Meyendorff mentions that there are some voices advocating a transfer of primacy to places like New York or Moscow.[56] He states: “It would, of course, be preferable for the patriarchate to remain in the inimitable glorious setting of Constantinople, but its very survival as an institution is more important than those historical considerations, and it is clear that the organization of a real world center would be much easier to realize elsewhere.”[57]
[edit]
Hearing appeals
Chalcedon canons 9 and 17 describe the authority of the see of Constantinople to hear appeals. This has certainly caused some problems in contemporary church life. Lewis Patsavos clarifies the view of the Ecumenical Patriarchate: “In both cases, bishops and other clergy dissatisfied with their metropolitan are not compelled be the council to appeal to the see of Constantinople, but thereby overturning the decision of the exarch of the diocese. On the contrary, they are given this option only if they so desire.”[58]
[edit]
Territorial Limits
Too often, the “pastoral care of the diaspora” has seemed more like a ploy for power. The question of territorial limits is a hotly debated today. Based on a certain interpretation of the term “barbarians” I Chalcedon canon 28, the Ecumenical Patriarch has tried to argue in recent years for jurisdiction over the “diaspora.” Troitsky and L’Huillier offer extensive treatments about the proper interpretation of this canon.[59] Nevertheless, the question remains: Does Constantinople have a certain jurisdiction over the “diaspora” not otherwise in the “territory” of another mother-church? Many would say yes. While shying away from the full brunt of the Constantinopolitan position, Lewis Patsavos defends this fundamental right to hear appeals, saying: “Constantinople has always maintained that the canonical legacy of the Fourth Ecumenical Council proves without a doubt… areas not claimed by a specific ecclesiastic jurisdiction were under the authority of the bishop of Constantinople.”[60]
[edit]
Conclusion

Throughout this article we have examined various nuances of an Orthodox approach to the issue of primacy. The subject is frustrating, because our theory seems quite distant from the actual reality of church life. We may hope, however, that by keeping this vision alive our Church will one day grow into its own theology.

[x5452]

From OCA Q&A: http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=194&SID=3

The Pope & Christian Unity
Printer Friendly Format
QUESTION:

I was raised in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. For the past 4 years I have attended a Roman Catholic Church. I found the people in the Orthodox Church to worship Ukraine more then God. I believe within the Catholic Church there is more unity, love, and worship. I believe that Romanians, Carpatho-Russians, Russians, etc. have the same problems.

The Bible states that Christ said to Peter, "on this rock I shall build my church". Why do we refuse to accept the Pope and work together to glorify God. Why must we see others faults first and seek unity second.


ANSWER:

A thorough examination of the "On This Rock" passage of Scripture is far beyond the scope of an e-mail, as it involves a variety of interpretations, theological perspectives, and historic realities which would comprise a veritable volume to discuss and debate. I can state, however, that the Orthodox view and attitude of the Roman Papacy is not a matter of refusing to accept the authority of the Pope but, rather, a matter of historic reality. The bottom line is that, during its 2000 year existence, the Orthodox Church had not been subject to the administrative authority of the Pope of Rome, and this is borne out in the extant decrees of the early Church councils. These councils, while acknowledging the Pope as the "first among equals," in no way envision the Bishop of Rome's "primacy of honor" as a "supremacy of jurisdiction." The papal claims to supremacy are of much later origin, and there are many who would argue that such claims have done far more damage to the unity of Christendom than anything else. [If one looks at the hundreds upon hundreds of Protestant groups that grew out of Roman Catholicism -- there is little parallel here within Orthodox Christianity -- one might also question the papacy as a point of unity.

While Orthodox Christians do indeed pray and hope for "the unity of all," and while it is unfortunately that there are some Orthodox Christians who are less than charitable in addressing non-Orthodox confessions, the fact remains that the unity one seeks must be a genuine unity rooted in Jesus Christ as the Great Archpastor and High Priest, as Saint Paul writes, and not in an administrative "Vicar."

I might suggest that you reconsider your experience of the Orthodox Church by visiting other parishes, speaking with other Orthodox Christians, and opening yourself to the possibility that the experience you had, obviously in a specific parish, is not necessarily the experience of the Orthodox Church as a whole. I my own parish I have faithful of every possible ethnic background. Many of them hold their ethnic roots in high esteem, but none of them, including the immigrants, put their ethnic roots before their Orthodoxy. By the same token I have personally visited Catholic communities, both of the Latin and Byzantine Rite, in which the ethnic flavor is as heavy as it sometimes is in some Orthodox congregations.

God bless you, and I hope this helps -- or at least gives you a somewhat different framework in which to evaluate your experiences.

[x5452]

From GOARCh.org: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8523.asp

Papal Primacy
Emmanuel Clapsis

The decision to study the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the universal Church of Christ indicates that the Orthodox?Roman Catholic consultation is moving towards the centre of the issues that have separated our respective communions. In this process, our deliberations must take seriously into account the theological statements of the bilateral dialogues between Roman Catholics and Anglicans, Lutherans and others. It must also take into consideration the reflection of Roman Catholic theologians who are seeking to reform ? but not to reject ? the primacy of the Roman church.[1] Orthodox?Roman theological reflection of the primacy of the Roman church in the universal Church of Christ must proceed, however, from the theological convergence that we have reached, based on the doctrine of the Trinity and the eucharist, concerning the nature of the Church as koinonia.[2] This will help us to transcend, not ignore, some divisive and inconclusive references to historical events.[3] In my view, the primacy of the bishop of Rome thus needs to be debated, reinterpreted, and justified from the developing ecclesiology of communion; this view of the Church is becoming the meeting point of our respective ecclesiologies.[4]

The ecumenical discussions

It has become increasingly apparent in ecumenical circles that many non?Roman theologians and churches are actually coming to regard some exercising of primacy by the Roman see as "normal", "desirable", ..useful", or (to some degree) "required". There is, however, a considerable difference between the official Roman Catholic view of primacy and the type of primacy that non?Roman theologians, churches and communions would be ready to accept for the well?being of the Church![5]

In the bilateral dialogues of Roman Catholics with Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed, the primacy of the bishop of Rome is discussed in the context of communion ecclesiology. The eucharist is seen

* First printed in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review vol. 32, no. 2, 1987.

as the effectual sign of koinonia, episkope as serving the koinonia, and primacy properly understood and exercised as a visible and possibly necessary link between all those exercising episkope within the koinonia. The local church (a diocese) manifests the fullness of the Church. The communion of faith, love and order of all local churches reveals the unity of God's Church that subsists in fullness in each local church.[6] The communion of the local churches, attributed to bishops of prominent sees, views the function of overseer of their regions as one of the ways of maintaining the faithfulness and the unity of the local churches to Christ's gospel.[7]

Partly as a result of this development, the see of Rome, whose prominence was associated with the deaths of Peter and Paul, became the principle centre in matters concerning the universal Church.[8] The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) statement of Venice (1976) states that the ministry of the bishop of Rome among his brother bishops was "interpreted" as Christ's will for his Church; its Importance was compared "by analogy" to the position of Peter among the apostles.[9] Classic Roman Catholic tradition maintained that the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome was divinely instituted by Jesus Christ. This was derived from the Petrine texts, and from the gospel accounts of Matthew (16:17?19), Luke (22:32)and John (21:15?17) according to the Roman tradition, they all refer not simply to the historical Peter, but to his successors to the end of time.[10]

Today, scriptural scholars of all traditions agree that we can discern in the New Testament an early tradition which attributes a special position to Peter among Christ's twelve apostles. The Church built its identity on them as witnesses, and responsibility for pastoral leadership was not restricted to Peter.[11] In Matthew 16:19, Peter is explicitly commissioned to "bind and loose"; later, in Matthew 18:18, Christ directly promises all the disciples that they will do the same. Similarly, the foundation upon which the Church is built is related to Peter in Matthew 16:16, and to the whole apostolic body elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 2:10).It is thus possible to conclude that, although the distinctive features of Peter's ministry are stressed, his ministry is that of an apostle and does not distinguish him from the ministry of the other apostles. In addition, the New Testament does not contain an explicit record of the transmission of Peter's leadership, nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear. As a result, the Petrine texts of the New Testament have been subjected to differing interpretations from the time of the Church Fathers on. Many theologians regard Roman "primacy" as having developed gradually in the West due to the convergence of a number of factors, e.g., the dignity of Rome as the only apostolic Church in the West; the tradition that both Peter and Paul had been martyred there; Rome's long history as a capital of the Roman empire; and its continuing position as the chief centre of commerce and communication.[12] This view, however, does not necessarily consider the primacy of the bishop of Rome as contrary to the New Testament. It is possible to accept the primacy of Rome in a qualified way as part of God's purpose regarding the Church's unity and catholicity even while admitting that New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for it.[13] Whether or not Peter's role can be transmitted in its totality, it would not exclude the analogical continuation of his ministry of unity, guided by the Spirit, among those who continue the apostolic mission. This "Petrine function" is necessary for the unity and catholicity of the Church. It may be executed by the pope, as Vatican I suggests, in consultation with but not independently from the bishops of God's Church.

For Roman Catholics, the relationship of the bishop of Rome with the ecumenical synods is not clearly defined, as Avery Dulles points out:

Vatican I, which placed supreme authority in the pope, left some uncertainty regarding the relations between the papacy, the universal episcopate, and ecumenical synods (which are not necessarily mere meetings of bishops). Since this uncertainty was not fully cleared up by Vatican II. the question of the supreme directive power in the Church still requires further discussion within the Roman Catholic communion.[14]

Lumen Gentium located the ministry of both the pope and the episcopal college within the one people of God; its statements on the local church's full ecclesial reality lead us to believe that Vatican II opted for an ecclesiology of communion in defining the nature of the Church. The real theological problem lies in specifying the exact relationship between the episcopal college and the pope, who can act Without juridical dependence on the college of which he is the head or on the communion of the local churches whose unity and truth he safeguards by being the central member of it.[15] Karl Rahner proposed that there can only be one organ possessing supreme potestas in the universal Church: the universal episcopal college with the bishop of Rome as its head. The episcopal college can only exercise its supreme potestas in union with its head: neither can the pope ever exercise supreme potestas in the universal Church except as head of the episcopal college (there are 110 juridical limitations on the exercise of this primatial power and no juridical response from the decisions of the legitimate pope ).[16] It is a truism that Vatican II, through its doctrine of episcopal collegiality, placed the primacy of the bishop of Rome in a new and much needed conciliar interpretative framework, but it simultaneously maintained (without synthesizing) the supreme and, to a certain degree, uncontrollable authority that Vatican I had attributed to the bishop of Rome. [17]

The ambiguity of this theological advance of Vatican II led the ARCIC participants to note: "Communion with the bishop of Rome does not imply submission to an authority which would stifle the distinctive features of the local churches. The purpose of the episcopal function of the bishop of Rome is to promote Christian fellowship in faithfulness to the teaching of the apostles."[18] The critical question here is whether this kind of ministry has been truly exercised by the bishop of Rome in a consistent manner that justifies its claims of importance. The ARCIC statement NOTES:

The theological interpretation of this primacy and the administrative structures through which it has been exercised have varied considerably through the centuries. Neither theory nor practice, however, has ever fully reflected these ideals. Sometimes functions assumed by the see of Rome were not necessarily linked to the primacy. Sometimes the conduct of the occupants of this see has been unworthy of his office. Sometimes the image of this office has been obscured by interpretations placed upon it, and sometimes external pressures have made its proper exercise almost impossible.[19]

I wonder whether, in moments of divisive theological or ecclesiastical quarrels, it would be possible for the bishop of Rome to exercise his primacy with the approval of all Christians in order to safeguard the unity, the truth and the catholicity of Christ's Church. By the same token, it is difficult to justify ecclesiologically the juridical independence of the bishop of Rome from the college of bishops of which he is head. Does this juridical independence not lead to authoritarian abuses of the pope's ecclesiastical power if and when he chooses? What administrative structure is necessary for the proper function of the primacy in the life of the Church? More significantly, what are the ecumenically accepted rights (of diakonia) and limits (of authority) of the bishop of Rome within a Communion of local churches who have been judged to be fully catholic? One of the most effective and normative means which the Church has for resolving the conflicts and debates which endanger its unity or threaten to distort itsgospel is to appeal to the Tradition embodied in scripture, conciliar creeds, canons and patristic writings. Bishops in such situations have a special responsibility to safeguard the unity and the truth of the Church: it is their collective as well as individual responsibility to defend and interpret the apostolic faith in unity with all God's people.[20]

It is possible, however, for the bishops to be intolerant, fallible in judgment, and distorting of the truth. But since Christ will never desert his Church, we remain confident that ultimately the Holy Spirit will lead Christ's Church to all truths and unity.[21] By the grace of the Holy Spirit the Church is infallible when it meets in synods to clarify the Church's understanding of the central truths of salvation once these synods have been recognized by the people of God as true and catholic expressions of the apostolic faith. [22] In such a context the universal primacy of the bishop of Rome would have him be the president as well as the spokesman of the Church and, in times of need, he would be the Church's unitary voice, reflecting and expressing its conscience.

"A primate exercises his ministry not in isolation but in collegial association with his brother bishops."[23] Thus primacy fulfills its purpose by helping the churches to listen to one another, to grow in love and unity, and to strive together towards the fullness of Christian life and witness; it respects and promotes Christian freedom and spontaneity; it does not seek uniformity where diversity is legitimate, or centralized administration to the detriment of the local churches.[24]

As for the Roman claim that the pope possesses universal immediate jurisdiction over the life of the local churches (the limits of which are not clearly specified), many Christians fear that this jurisdiction may be subject to an illegitimate and uncontrolled use.[25] The ARCIC statement of Windsor defines jurisdiction as "the authority of power (potestas) necessary for the exercise of an office"[26] and it proceeds to accept the "universal immediate jurisdiction" of the bishop of Rome as inherent to his office due to his call to serve the unity of the koinonia "as whole and in each of its parts".[27] This "universal immediate jurisdiction" should be exercised, however, not in isolation, but in collegial association with his brother bishops, who are equally concerned for the unity and truth of the universal Church (the result of their office and not of their association with the bishop of Rome).

Yet the bishop of Rome, the Windsor statement declares, has the right in special cases to intervene in the affairs of a diocese and to receive appeals from the decision of a diocesan bishop. It is because the universal primate, in collegial association with his fellow bishops, has the task of safeguarding the faith and the unity of the universal Church that the diocesan bishop is subject to his authority.[28]

However this kind of authority, although it is defined not as autocratic power over the Church, but as a service in and to the Church, which is a communion in faith and charity of local churches, needs in its practical application to be safeguarded against any abuses which may lead to suppression of theological and liturgical traditions of which the bishop of Rome does not approve.

The Orthodox position

What is the Orthodox view on the bishop of Rome's primacy, especially as reinterpreted by Roman Catholicism in its dialogue with other Western Christian churches? One may rejoice that Western Christians have begun to recover his importance for the unity of Western Christendom, but from an Orthodox perspective it is imperative to study the primacy of Rome in the context of the primacies of the patriarchs of the East and their role in the universal Church .[29]

It would be impossible for us to reach any convergence on the significance of the bishop of Rome if our consultation were to begin with a comparison of classic Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of the papacy. Our common reflection on this issue must be situated in the common ecclesiology of communion that our respective churches have begun to share, especially after Vatican II.[30] In 1974 our consultation stated: "The Church is the communion of believers living in Jesus Christ with the Father. It has its origins and prototype in the Trinity in which there is both distinction of persons and unity based on love, not subordination."[31] It also affirmed that the eucharistic celebration "both proclaims the most profound realization of the Church and realizes what it proclaims in the measure that the community opens itself to the Spirit".[32] This kind of ecclesiology leads to an affirmation of the full catholicity of the local church ? provided it lives by the Spirit of God which makes it the living body of Christ in communion of love with other local churches that share the same faith and life pattern. Within the unity of the local churches, "a real hierarchy of churches was recognized in response to the demands of the mission of the Church"[33] without, however, the fundamental equality of all churches being destroyed. How should we understand the churches as having a hierarchy if they are fundamentally and irreversibly equal to each other as a result of God's full presence in them? What is the qualitative theological difference between a local church which exercises primacy and another local one over which this primacy is exercised? If a local church is fully catholic, how is it enriched by its relation with a primatial church? In 1974, the Roman Catholic members of this consultation vindicated the primacy of the bishop of Rome (as defined by Vatican 1) with no reference to the advances of the Second Vatican Council through which a more communitarian image of the papacy could be advanced.[34] Although the institution of primacy (regional or universal) from an Orthodox perspective is taken for granted by the very fact of its existence, I will agree with Father Alexander Schmemann, who noted that we badly need the clarification of the nature and function of all the primacies, and especially the very concept of primacy.[35] It is imperative that Orthodox ecumenical witness develop an ecclesiologically sound interpretation of primacy.

If primacy is defined as a form of power, then we encounter the question of whether in the Orthodox church there is a power superior to that of a bishop, i.e., a power over the bishop, and hence the church of which he is head. Theologically and ecclesiologically the answer must be an unconditional no: there is no power over the bishop and his church. In the canonical and historical life of the Church, however, such supreme power not only exists but is conceived as the foundation of the Church; it is the basis of its canonical system. According to Father Schmemann, this reflects the alienation of canonical tradition from ecclesiology and its reduction to canon law in the context of which the life of the Church came to be expressed in juridical terms.[36]

Our theological statement on the nature of the Church (1974) and the Munich statement of the international Orthodox?Roman Catholic dialogue have indirectly rejected the idea of a universal ecclesiology in which the Church is the sum of all local churches, which all together constitute the body of Christ. This kind of ecclesiology means that each local church is only a part, a member of the universal Church that participates in the Church only through belonging to the whole.[37] Thus, if the Church is a universal organism, it must have as its head a universal bishop as the focus of its unity and as the organ of supreme power. Consequently, the model of ecclesiology makes imperative the necessity of universal primacy as divinely instituted for the essential being of the Church. This is the kind of ecclesiology which, together with other historical causes, gave birth to the image of papacy defined by Vatican I in 1870.

Eucharistic ecclesiology affirms the catholicity of the local church, and allows no room for the categories of "parts" or "whole". It is the very essence of this ecclesiology that the universal Church subsists in toto in the local church.[38] This kind of ecclesiology excludes the idea of primacy, understood as power over the local church and its bishop. The local churches, however, are not self?sufficient monads but are united with each other, not in terms of "parts" and "whole", but with regard to their identity of order, faith and gifts of the Holy Spirit which make each one and all of them together the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Trinitarian ecclesiology also develops the insight that there is one Church just as there is one nature in God; the best way to express the oneness of the Church, however, is the communion of the many local churches. It is very important, on the other hand, to emphasize that the multiplicity of the Church should not be subjected to its oneness; in eucharistic and Trinitarian ecclesiology, communion and oneness coincide and, therefore, the multiplicity of the Church is constitutive of its oneness. In the life of the local church this means that the "one", the bishop, cannot exist without the "many", the community, and the many cannot exist without the one. This implies that all pyramidal notions disappear in ecclesiology: the "one" and the "many" coexist as two aspects of the same being. There is no ministry, which does not need the other ministries. On the universal level this means that the Church manifests its oneness through a ministry which comprises simultaneously a primus and the synod of which he is a primus. From this perspective, it is thus possible to accept the universal primacy of a bishop, which cannot, however, be conceived apart from the synod or over it.[39]

The communion of local churches, ontologically identical in faith, order and charisms of the Holy Spirit, bear witness to their unity when they gather themselves together through their bishops, in synods.

The synod is not "power" in the juridical sense of the word, for there can exist no power over the Church, the Body of Christ. The synod is, rather, a witness to the identity of all churches as the Church of God in faith, life and "agape". If in his own church the bishop is priest, teacher and pastor, the divinely appointed witness and keeper of the Catholic faith, it is through the agreement of all bishops, as revealed in the synod that all churches both manifest and maintain the ontological unity of tradition.[40]

As a result of church life and mission in the context of history, moreover, in times of discord the synod becomes the common voice, the common testimony of the ontological unity of several (or all) churches. For Orthodoxy the truth that a synod affirms thus makes the synod an authority in the life of the Church; the basis of its primacy is derived from this as binding for the historical life of God's Church. The primacy of the synod cannot, however, be conceived as power over the local church but rather as a charismatic instrument through which the churches of God witness and express their ontological unity in the truth of the gospel. The primacy of the synod, through which the local churches witness and express their unity in the salvific truths of Christ, does not exclude the primacy of the first bishop or the metropolitan. In regional synods, in which all the bishops of the area must participate, the primacy of the first bishop must be acknowledged and respected as the famous 34 Apostolic Canon states: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent... but neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity..." From this canon, it is thus evident that the regional primacy can be conceived not as power or jurisdiction but only as an expression of the unity and unanimity of all the bishops, and consequently of all the churches, of an area.

We must understand the universal primacy of the Roman Church similarly. Based on Christian Tradition, it is possible to affirm the validity of the church of Rome's claims of universal primacy. Orthodox theology, however, objects to the identification of this primacy as "supreme power" transforming Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church itself.[41] The Church from the first days of its existence undeniably possessed an ecumenical centre of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and Judaeo?Christian period this centre was first the church of Jerusalem and later the church of Rome ? "presiding in agape" according to St Ignatios of Antioch.[42] For the Orthodox, the essence and the 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, losing the catholicity, separating themselves from the unity of life. It means ultimately to assume the care, the sollicitudo of the churches so that each one of them can abide in that fullness which is always the whole of the Catholic tradition and not any one "part" of it. The idea of primacy thus excludes the idea of jurisdiction but implies that of an "order" of Church which does not subordinate one church to another, but which makes it possible for all churches to live together this life of all in each and of each in all.[43]

In summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25?27).[44]

Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite (759?829) urged the emperor to consult the pope: "If there is anything in the patriarch's reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief... you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition."[45] From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling.[46]

In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

[jo kus]

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

We don't believe we bear the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin as if it were our personal sin. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the charecter of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justcie, but human nature has not been totally corrupt...Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. (CCC 405)

The Council of Trent is merely balancing the heresy of Pelagianism, which calls Adam's sin a "bad example" and that men of today are not effected by it vs. the Protestant Reformation, which claimed that man was radically perverted and had NO freedom of will. The Church refutes both positions.

"By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners"..."sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Romans 5:23, 19) Since the whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man (as we are in the New Adam)", ALL men are implicated in Adam's sin and ALL men are implicated in Christ's Justice. While we do not have personal guilt, we, as one Body, share in the guilt of Adam. Since Adam received original holiness for himself and ALL human nature, his fallen state is also propagated to us. Original sin is a sin "contracted" not "committed" - it is a state, not an act.

Regards