A Russian Orthodox View of Papacy, and More (Part 1)

VIENNA, Austria, NOV. 6, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox can be fruitful, though many hurdles still exist on the road to Eucharistic communion, says a leading prelate.

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna and Austria, representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions, commented in this interview on Benedict XVI's forthcoming visit to Turkey, as well as on other topics.

Part 2 of this interview will appear Tuesday.

Q: Soon Pope Benedict XVI will visit Turkey, because he wants to strengthen the bonds between Rome and Constantinople. What is the significance of this journey as to the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue?

Bishop Alfeyev: It is to be hoped that this visit will further improve the relations between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople. These two churches broke communion with one another in 1054, therefore it makes them especially responsible to restore unity.

In speaking about the possible impact of this meeting on Orthodox-Catholic relations as a whole, one should remember that the Orthodox Church, insofar as its structure is concerned, is significantly different from the Roman Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Church has no single primate. It consists of 15 autocephalous churches, each headed by its own patriarch, archbishop or metropolitan.

In this family of Churches the patriarch of Constantinople is "primus inter pares," but his primacy is that of honor, not of jurisdiction, since he has no ecclesial authority over the other Churches. When, therefore, he is presented as the "head" of the Orthodox Church worldwide, it is misleading. It is equally misleading when his meeting with the Pope of Rome is considered to be a meeting of the heads of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Historically, until the schism of 1054, it was the Bishop of Rome who enjoyed a position of primacy among the heads of the Christian Churches. The canons of the Eastern Church -- in particular, the famous 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon -- ascribe the second, not the first place, to the patriarch of Constantinople.

Moreover, the ground on which this second place was granted to the patriarch of Constantinople was purely political: Once Constantinople became "the second Rome," capital of the Roman -- Byzantine -- Empire, it was considered that the bishop of Constantinople should occupy the second seat after the Bishop of Rome.

After the breach of communion between Rome and Constantinople, the primacy in the Eastern Orthodox family was shifted to the "second in line," i.e., the patriarch of Constantinople. Thus it was by historical accident that he became "primus inter pares" for the Eastern part of the world Christendom.

I believe that, alongside with contacts with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, it is equally important for the Roman Catholic Church to develop bilateral relations with other Orthodox Churches, notably with the Russian Orthodox Church. The latter, being the second largest Christian Church in the world -- its membership comprises some 160 million believers worldwide -- is eager to develop such relations, especially in the field of common Christian witness to secularized society.

Q: Do you think that this journey will open new horizons for the talks between the Christian and the Muslim worlds?

Bishop Alfeyev: Dialogue between Christians and Muslims is necessary and timely. It is quite unfortunate that some attempts by Christian leaders to encourage this dialogue have been misinterpreted by certain representatives of the Muslim world.

The recent controversy over Pope Benedict XVI's academic lecture in Regensburg is a vivid example of such a misinterpretation. The aggressive reaction of a number of Muslim politicians, as well as of many ordinary followers of Islam, has been regarded by some observers as overly exaggerated.

Some analysts asked: Are we not moving toward a world dictatorship of Muslim ideology, when every critical observation of Islam -- even within the framework of an academic lecture -- is brutally and aggressively opposed, while criticism of other religions, especially Christianity, is permitted and encouraged?

I should add, perhaps, that several theologians of the Russian Orthodox Church, even those normally critical of the Roman Catholic Church, expressed their support for Pope Benedict XVI when the controversy over his Regensburg lecture broke out. They felt that what he said was important, although, indeed, it was not quite in tune with modern unwritten rules of political correctness.

Q: The Pope did away with the title "Patriarch of the Occident." What does this gesture mean? Is there any ecumenical meaning to it?

Bishop Alfeyev: Well, I was the first Orthodox hierarch that happened to comment on this gesture. Several weeks later, official comments were also made by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In my remarks I argued that repudiation of the title "Patriarch of the Occident" is likely to be considered by the Orthodox as confirming the claim, reflected in the pope's other titles, to universal Church jurisdiction.

Among the many designations of the Pontiff, that of "Bishop of Rome" remains the most acceptable for the Orthodox Churches, since it points to the Pope's role as diocesan bishop of the city of Rome.

A title such as "Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province" shows that the Pope's jurisdiction includes not only the city of Rome, but also the province.

"Primate of Italy" indicates that the Bishop of Rome is "first among equals" among the bishops of Italy, i.e., using Orthodox language, primate of a local Church. Following this understanding, none of the three titles would pose a problem for the Orthodox in the event of a re-establishment of Eucharistic communion between East and West.

The main obstacle to ecclesial unity between East and West, according to many Orthodox theologians, is the teaching on the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Within this context -- unacceptable and even scandalous, from the Orthodox point of view -- are precisely those titles that remain in the list, such as Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.

According to Orthodox teaching, Christ has no "vicar" to govern the universal Church in his name.

The title "Successor of the Prince of the Apostles" refers to the Roman Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter which, when passed on to the Bishop of Rome, secured for him governance over the universal Church. This teaching has been criticized in Orthodox polemical literature from Byzantine time onward.

The title "Supreme Pontiff" -- "Pontifex Maximus" -- originally belonged to the pagan emperors of ancient Rome. It was not rejected by the Emperor Constantine when he converted to Christianity.

With respect to the Pope of Rome, "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" is a designation that points to the Pope's universal jurisdiction -- a level of authority which is not recognized by the Orthodox Churches. It is precisely this title that should have been dropped first, had the move been motivated by the quest for "ecumenical progress" and desire for the amelioration of Catholic-Orthodox relations.

[Tuesday: A strategic alliance to defend Christian values]

But let us see what the ancient Councils of the undivided Church reveal about the authority of the pope. The Council of Ephesus, 431:

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle.

* * * Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (exarkos) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (qemelios) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith.

The Council of Chalcedon, 451:

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches ...

* * *
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

* * *
[The Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following (Col. 426:)]
Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.

The Third Council of Constantinople, 860:

THE LETTER OF POPE AGATHO.
For [Peter] received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things.

* * * A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome.:
Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles.

Thus it is clear that the claims of Rome were clearly set forth at an early date and included in the official acts of the Councils. Nor is there recorded any objections to these claims.

Petrodisus, the problem with extensive (but selective) quotes is akin to that of believing statistics. One can make them look any way he or she wants.

Without tying up too much bandwidth, the Council of Chalcedon, from which you quote too, was not all that you present it to be in your selective presentation.

One can just as easily make it appear quite opposite. Thus, a commentary on the outcome of the Council states:

jure divine

The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church

but

archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy

Consider the very ending of the Council of Chalcedon, when:

The Apostolic See gave orders that all things should be done in our presence

who is the ruler of the whole church

indignity done to his See

The most glorious judges said: The whole synod has approved what we proposed.

Thus ended the Council of Chalcedon: in humiliation for the "ruler of the whole Church."

So, while the "ruler" of the whole Church flatly rejected Canon XXVIII, and refused to sign it, his bark had no bute: the proclamations of the Ecumenical Council took effect inspiute of hbis opposition to it.

He wrote to the Emperor, saying that the Bishop of Constantinople, Anatolius, received his position by his (+Leo's) consent, and that "he should behave himself modestly." +Leo also stated that in no way can Constantinople be "an Apostolic See," but conceded that "only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith" he has "abstained from annulling this ordination."

To the Empress he threatened to "annul" the decisions "by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter," but his annulment had no sway as he admitted in another letter to her less than a year later when he coneded that even the Illyrian Bishops (under his jurisdiction) accepted the Canon he supposedly annulled "by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter."

[NB: the primacy and second in honor of the Bishop of Constantinople was firmy established by the Council of Trullo and subsequent Councils]

All this points to a radically different picture portrayed by your documents. It shows that while the Latin Church held that the Pope was the "ruler of the whole Church," the whole Church did not share in that opinion.

Given the virtual linguistic apartheid that existed after the 5th century between the two Church cultures, the Latin Church simply continued to live in its self-proclaimed truths, ignoring the fact hat the rest of the Church (the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) did not subscribe to that formula.

If anything, the IV Ecumenical Council shows that the Pope was anything but the ruler of the whole Church (individual Bishop's pronouncements notwithstanding), as the Church of his day saw his primacy of honor, which is in stark contrast to the idea of papacy, as it developed later without opposition, an illusion that persists to this day. Memory fades very quickly, and quoting individual bishops (especially papal legates) as authoritative representatives of the whole Undivided Church is a distortion, for the lack of a better word.

There are countless instances in the Council that point to a conclusion completely opposite from the one you are trying to portray, which ony tells me that you either didn't read the whole Council or selected only those articles which suited your view or both. Thus, for example, the Bishops proclaim:
"The most glorious judges said: From what has been done and brought forward on each side, we perceive that the primacy of all and the chief honor according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy, and to have the power to ordain the metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian dioceses." [emphases added]

You should really look again at the passage you quoted above. Close inspection would reveal that it describes Rome as possessing "the primacy of all", while that of Constantinople is limited to Asia, Pontus and Thrace. In other words, Rome possesses a universal jurisdiction while Constantinople exercise a subordinate jurisdiction over the named provinces. That this is indeed the common understanding in the East of the hierarchical organization of the Church we find Emperor Justinian writing in 536:

Wherefore following in all things the Apostolic See, we set forth what has been ordained by it. And we profess that these things shall be kept without fail, and will order that all Bishops shall do according to the tenor of that formulary: the Patriarchs to Your Holiness, and the Metropolitans to the Patriarchs, and the rest ot their own Metropolitans: that in all things our Holy Catholic Church may have its proper solidity.

Thus ended the Council of Chalcedon: in humiliation for the "ruler of the whole Church."

The respect shown the Apostolic See was hardly "humiliation." This can be seen in that the Council forwarded the canons to the pope to be ratified. That Canon XXVIII was approved despite the objections of the Papal Legates is just an example of subordinates trying to force the had of their superior, whose authority they otherwise respect. This is neither the first nor the last time this has happened in history. If you have followed the conflicts in the Catholic Church since Vatican II you would unfortunately find numerous example of this kind. You can see this in the lasted moves by the French bishops to stop the motu proprio by Pope Benedict to all the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass. They may try to force the hand of the Pope but nevertheless do recognize him as the successor of Peter.

This just will not wash. The bishops were highly educated and a knowledge of both Latin and Greek would have been general throughout the empire. Furthermore, the quotations I gave earlier concerning the authority of the pope were recorded in the Acts of the Councils in both Greek and Latin. Furthermore I will cite the following examples of the acceptance by those in the East of the authority of the popes:

In the year 500, the bishops of the East wishing to end the schism of Acacius addressed Pope Symmachus with the following words:

But do thou, as an affectionate father among children, beholding us perishing by the prevarication of our Father Acacius, not delay; who art daily taught by the sacred Doctor Peter to feed the sheep of Christ entrusted to thee throughout the whole habitable world, gathered together, not by force, but of their own accord.

In 514 Pope Hormisdas was addressed by about two hundred Archimandrites, Priests and Deacons of Syria:

To the most holy and blesssed Patriarch of the whole earth, Hormisdas, holding the See of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, the entreaty and supplication of the humble Archimandrites and other Monks of the province of Second Syria.
Since Christ our God has appointed you Chief Pastor, and Teacher, and Physician of souls, we beseech you, therefore, most blessed Father, to arise, and justly condole with the Body torn to pieces, for ye are the Head of all, and avenge the Faith despised, the Canons trodden under foot, the Father blasphemed. The Flock itself comes forward to recognize its own Shepherd in you its true Pastor and Doctor, to whom the care of the sheep is entrusted for their salvation.

From the Metropolitan of Cyprus in 643:

To the most blessed Father of Fathers, Archbishop and Universal Patriarch, [Pope] Theodore, Sergius, the humble Bishop, health in the Lord.
Christ our God hath established thy Apostolic See, O Sacred Head, as a divinely-fixed immovable foundation, whereupon the faith is brightly inscribed. For "Thou art Peter," as the Divine Word truly pronounced, and on thy foundation the pillars of the Church are fixed. Into thy hands He put the keys of the heavens, and pronounced that thou shouldest bind and loose in earth and heaven with power.

The petition of Stephen, Bishop of Dora, first member of the Synod of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, read in the Lateran Council of Pope Martin in 649:

Who shall give us the wings of a dove, that we may fly and report hist to your supreme See, which rules and is set over all, that the wound may be entirely healed! For this the great Peter, the Head of the Apostles, has been wont to do with power from of old, by his Apostolical or Canonical authority; since manifestly not only he alone beside all thought worthy to be entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to open and to shut these, worthily of believing, but justly to those unbelieving the Gospel of grace. Not to say that he first was set in charge to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for He says, "Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep." And again, in a manner special and peculiar to himself, having a stronger faith that all in our Lord, and unchangeable, to convert and confirm his spiritual partners and brethren, when tossed by doubt, having had power and sacerdotal authority providently committed to him by the very God for our sakes Incarnate. Which, knowing Sophronius, of blessed memory, Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God,—placed me on Holy Calvary,—and there bound me with indissoluble bonds, saying "Thou shalt give account to our God Who on this sacred spot was willingly sacrificed in the flesh for us, at His glorious and dreadful appearing, when He shall judge the living and the dead, if thou delay and neglect His Faith endangered: though I, as thou knowest, cannot do this personally, for the inroad of the Saracens, which has burst on us for our sins. Go then with all speed from one end of the earth to the other, till thou come to the Apostolic See, where the foundations of the true faith are laid.

In 650, St. Maximus, Abbot of Constantinople writes:

Let him hasten before all to satisfy the Roman See. That done, all will every where, with one accord, hold him pious and orthodox. For he merely talks idly when he thinks of persuading and imposing on such like as me, and does not satisfy and implore the most blessed Pope of the most holy Roman Church, that is, the Apostolic See, which from the very Incarnate Word of God, but also from all holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and rules has received and holds in all persons, and for all things, empire, authority, and power to bind and to loose, over the universal holy Churches of God, which are in all the world. For when this binds and looses, so also does the Word in heaven, who rules the celestial virtues.

Nor can these statements be dismissed as the opinions of isolated individuals. In the year 500, the bishops of the East wishing to end the schism of Acacius addressed Pope Symmachus with the following words:

But do thou, as an affectionate father among children, beholding us perishing by the prevarication of our Father Acacius, not delay; who art daily taught by the sacred Doctor Peter to feed the sheep of Christ entrusted to thee throughout the whole habitable world, gathered together, not by force, but of their own accord.

In order to end the schism, the bishops of the East signed the famous libellus of Pope Hormidas which stated:

Our fist safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." These words which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain. ... Moreover, we accept and approve all the letters of blessed Leo the Pope, which he wrote regarding the Christian religion, just as we said before, following the Apostolic See in all things, and extolling all its ordinances. And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and true and perfect solidality of the Christian religion, promising than in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it.

This same profession was later signed by Patriarchs of Constantinople Epiphanius, John, Menna and by all the bishops at the Fourth Council of Constantinople.

I have shown through contemporary documents that:
1) the concept of the papal authority developed early in the Church;
2) this concept was communicated to the Eastern church and was known by them;
3) statements of authority of the pope were include in the official Acts of Ecumenical Councils;
4) on numerous occasions this authority was acknowledged by bishops in the East, including Patriarchs of Constantinople, and
5) on two occasions all the bishops of the East signed a statement confirming the authority of the pope.

On numerous occasions you have stated that the early Church only recognized the pope as holding a primacy of honor. What statements from the period can you produce to support this position that explicitly reject the claims of the Apostolic See? So please do not speak to me about a "distortion"!

Close inspection would reveal that it describes Rome as possessing "the primacy of all", while that of Constantinople is limited to Asia, Pontus and Thrace. In other words, Rome possesses a universal jurisdiction while Constantinople exercise a subordinate jurisdiction over the named provinces

First, the very quote at the very beginning of my previous post shows that I am not the only one who thinks this is not so.

Second, what you call "subordinate" jurisdiction was anything but that, which is why Pope +Leo was so disturbed by Canon XXVIII, feeling that his presumed supremacy was being usurped.

There was nothing "subordinate" in reminding the Pope that he did not have the authority to ordain Bishops in the another Patriarchate (in other words, that hjis jurisdictional authroity was limited to his Latin Patriarchate)! This was not an act of disobedience, as is the case with the French bishops you cite, but an infallible decision of an Ecumenical Council! You are comparing apples and oranges.

How can someone have jurisdiction over all, if he doesn't have authority over all? Calling the authority of other Patriarchs "subordinate", when in fact it is absolute, is an oxymoron.

Third, Pope +Leo is the author of papal supremacy, not primacy. Primacy is not supremacy as it is understood today, and neither was it understood at the IV Ecumenical Council. Regarding "primacy of all," this is what the papal legate had to say at that gathering:

bishop of Alexandria have the authority over all

custom

So too at Antioch and in the other provinces let the churches of the larger cities have the primacy

I will ask you agian to read the entire text of the Council.

It is clear from this very papal legate's statement that "primacy of all" does not mean jurisdiction over other Patriarchates, but over the Church in Rome. Little later, as least in the Greek text, it states that "the primacy of churches (Patriarchal Sees) must be preserved" because it has been so and is an "ancient tradition."

No one ever questioned that the Pope had primacy over all in his own Patriarchate. The problem arose with Pope +Leo's ambitious drive to establish papal supremacy over other Patriarchs. The Council, however, resolutely defeated this move by establishing that the "primacy of all" does not equal "supremacy over all," for no bishop has authority over other bishops (the Church is where the Bishop is), but some bishops have jurisdictional authority that others don't, not by dogma, but by custom and tradition, as agreed and decided on by the Church.

In a re-united Church, the Pope could not exercise his "supremacy" over other Patriarchates (indeed Rome would have to re-define the whole concept of the term Patriarchate), as well as jurisdictional bundaries. In other words, the Pope will always be the first among the bishops, but (VI Ecumenical Council, Imperial Decree), but not their lord, as +Peter was not a lord to other Apostles, not "supreme."

It is also important to understand that the Church of Pope +Leo's time understood the jurisdiction and honor in the Church to be a Spirit-guided and chronological decision, and not soemthing that was there all along. Thus the Bishops state:

For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city

gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome

equal privileges with the old imperial Rome

in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her

Notice the part about "granting" privileges as a result of a decision of bishops (Ecumenical Council), and not some God-given right, based entirely on the prominence of the imperial city (political), and the Old Rome, retaining the ranking in ecclesiastical matters by the decision of the Council, with Constantinople (New Rome), "next after her."

Clearly, the other Patriarchal Sees, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, much older and prominent in their role of the developing Church, had taken a back seat, and the only criteria that determined who will walk in and out first were political and not ecclesiastical, or iblical.

You challenge my contention that the Council of Chalcedon ended in humiliation (the words of the very papal legate present there) for the "ruler of the whole Church," yet it took Rome several centuries to accept fully the decisions of that Council (especially Canon XXVIII), as it was finally ratified hundreds of years after +Leo's passing. However, it is obvious that Rome really never did fully accept it but rather, as Pope +Leo stated, "only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith."

As for your quotes of other bishops, I repeat that bishops individually, or as a local group, do not (and can not) represent the Church as a whole, speak on behalf of the Church as a whole, have authority over the Church as a whole, or are necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit. Their opinions and expressions of praise are just that.

The Pope obviously did not become the "first among equals" simply from being +Peter's successor, for the Bishop of Antioch could make the same claim. The honor and respect for the Pope was earned by the imperial majesty of His See and, within the Church, by the almost unfailing orthodoxy of the Roman Bishops in the Undivided Church (which is more than can be said for the Patriarchs of Constantinople!), and not something that was biblically pre-ordained.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.