Primacy and Identity A Response to ‘First Without Equals’ and the Tragedy of Deficient Ecclesiology

 The paper that follows was originally drafted in 2015 as an internal reference document for members of various theological commissions, as a response to documents that had then been somewhat recently published and generated debate over the preceding years. The more recent events of 2018, centred in Ukraine but relating to questions of ecclesiological primacy that affect the whole Orthodox world (and which, at the present moment,1 are still very much ongoing), have given cause to disseminate the text more broadly, as a small study of some of the core ecclesiastical and theological principles involved.

We are witnessing, at the present moment, a fuller realisation of the disastrous theological and ecclesiological positions outlined in the text below, which were already nascent three years ago (and indeed further back). Improper theological visions of Church hierarchy and primacy have since led beyond the bold assertion of the unsupportable concept of a Primate who is ‘first without equals’, to the actual implementation of this flawed ecclesiology in one See’s direct violation of canonical order, based precisely on its insupportable belief that it has ultimate authority to act in its own right, in a manner binding upon all others.2 That this position, and the dire actions associated with it, is contrary to canonical order is the subject of many studies already; that it is the ‘logical’ fruit of a flawed vision of primacy and authority, rooted in misapplications of Trinitarian theology and a failure to understand episcopal-sacramental participation in the Body of Christ, is the object of what follows below.

Read the rest here.

Dr. Adam DeVille Responds to the Russian Church's Statement on Primacy

Dr. DeVille has written a critical response to the MP's long awaited document on primacy. As I have said repeatedly, the document was only incidentally addressed to Rome. The real target was Constantinople, and it definitely got their attention. In all honesty I was not exactly bowled over by the Moscow document. It seems like a fairly cavalier and breathtakingly short document for such a weighty subject. And I don't think Adam is too far off the mark in his suggestion that Moscow is trying to reduce the Ecumenical Patriarch to an ecclesiastical equivalent to The Queen of England, i.e. a figurehead.

All of which lends further weight to my long held view that we have no business holding discussions aimed at ending a thousand year schism with Rome, until we have our own ducks in a row. Conversations with Rome should be limited to areas of mutual interest, such as charity and the collapse of western civilization before the twin threats of militant secularism and militant Islam while we sort out our internal issues.

I will be most interested to see what becomes of this much discussed but never quite materializing Pan-Orthodox Synod.

The Russian Church on Primacy

This is a new and important document that lays out the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the subject of Primacy. I suspect (the cynic in me) that it was meant as much for Constantinople's eyes as Rome's.

HT: Byzantine Texas

Hmmmm

November 8, 2012 – The Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission met for a plenary session at the conference hall of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations. It was chaired by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Commission.

Among the participants in the session were Archbishop Yevgeny of Vereia, chairman of the Education Committee and rector of the Moscow theological schools; Bishop Amvrosy of Gatchina, rector of St. Petersburg Theological Academy, as well as Hegumen Philaret (Bulekov) and Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, DECR vice-chairmen.

The Commission considered a draft document on the Moscow Patriarchate’s Position on Primacy in the Universal Church prepared by the Commission’s secretariat and submitted to the Commission in pursuance of the Holy Synod Resolution of March 27, 2007.

After making some amendments to the draft, the Commission adopted it for submission to the Holy Synod for action.

Source

Met. Hilarion: Orthodoxy is not of one mind on primacy

A leading Russian Orthodox official says the Eastern Orthodox churches have yet to resolve the question of authority among themselves, a condition for future progress on the issue of the papacy.

“I would say that there are certain divergences, and there are different positions, of the Orthodox churches on the question of the primacy,” said Metropolitan Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, in a Vatican Radio interview following his Sept. 29 meeting with Pope Benedict XVI at Castel Gandolfo.

“As we discuss the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, within the framework of the next commission, we do not only discuss the primacy of Rome; but we have to touch the issue of the primacy in general,” noted the Orthodox metropolitan, apparently referring to future proceedings of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

“And here, of course, we have different traditions – not only between the Catholics and the Orthodox, because we never had such a centralized system as the Catholics have – but we also have some difference among the Orthodox, as to what should be the role of the 'first hierarch' in the Orthodox Church.” The Patriarch of Constantinople occupies that role, but his prerogatives are not fully defined.

Read the rest here.

The Function of the Unity of the Church and the Fallacious Theological Presuppositions of Papal Primacy

Hat tip: A Sinner

(A talk given by Mr. Dimitrios Tselengidis, Professor at the University of Thessaloniki, at the Metropolis of Piraeus' Conference on the Theme "‘Primacy,' Synodicality and the Unity of the Church" Peace and Friendship Stadium, 28 April 2010)...

...But also every other attempt at unity with the heterodox which skirts the above-mentioned theological presuppositions for the "faith once delivered (Jude 1:3)," is actually impossible. Nevertheless, the delegates of the local Orthodox Churches with their center of co-ordination (the Ecumenical Patriarchate) appear to have another opinion about the unity of the Church. This is why it is particularly typical that in the first paragraph of the submitted draft of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue with the Roman-Catholics in Cyprus, in October of 2009, it is cited that in the agreed upon Joint Statement of Ravenna (2007) Roman-Catholics and Orthodox refer to "the age of the undivided Church," (See Statement of Ravenna 41). It is clear that this phrasing presupposes for the members of the Joint International Commission that today the undivided Church does not exist. Therefore, today the Church is divided, despite the faith of the Church, which we confess verbally in the Symbol of our Faith. However, this means the falling away from the Church of all those who consciously support all that the Statement of Ravenna contains about the identity of the Church, since it indirectly but clearly does not accept a part of the dogmatic teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council.

However, already much earlier the Roman-Catholics had deviated from the dogmatic teaching of the Second Ecumenical Council with the addition of the Filioque. The Filioque was conceived and appeared in the West when the experience of the charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit in the ecclesiastical assembly of the Pope's see withdrew. Essentially, the Filioque was the crystallization of the estrangement from the living experience of the uncreated grace and energy of the Triune God, through which immediate and real communion with man is realized in the chief conveyor of the unity of God and man, that is, in the Church.

Consequently, due to our dogmatic disparity from the Roman-Catholics there cannot be - neither actual nor formal - union with them. Nonetheless, the strange thing (dogmatically and ecclesiologically) is that the Statement of Ravenna, consistent with the previous Joint Statements of Munich, Bari, Valaam and Balamand, refers to a common apostolic faith, the common mysteries (sacraments) and the ecclesiastical character of the heterodox. Thus, the false and blasphemous impression is given that with the joint Statement of Ravenna Christ is deceived, Who assured us that branches cut from the vine cannot bear fruit. The members of the Joint International Commission affirm in their statements, that in spite of the heretical divergences, the Roman-Catholics constitute a Church and that they possess genuine sacraments. It is theologically and logically odd that the representatives of the local Orthodox Churches do not realize the enormous dogmatic error of the Roman-Catholics concerning the created nature of their sacraments, an error which literally invalidates the aforementioned claim of the Roman-Catholics, which Orthodox representatives also endorse. The Roman-Catholics themselves assure us with their dogmatic teaching about created grace, that they are empirically devoid of the experience in the Holy Spirit of the Church and of the theanthropic nature of its unity in the Holy Spirit. Consequently, with the existing presuppositions it is completely theologically unwise and pointless for unity of an ecclesiastical nature to be attempted with them. In addition, such unity is practically and completely impossible, since it goes against the theological presuppositions of the Church and the ontological content of its nature...

Read the rest here.

A gentle reminder, please refrain from posting overheated comments.

Moscow takes aim at (new?) Rome

Despite all the ink spilled over the subject of my preceding post, many Orthodox (including yours truly) will tell you that the Filioque is something that can probably be overcome. In fact most of the differences between Orthodoxy and Rome are in my opinion not insurmountable. This doesn't mean it would be a cake walk. But with a lot of charity and patience and a healthy dose of creativity most of the separating issues probably can be overcome to a degree sufficient to permit some sort of restoration of communion. The key word there is "most."

To me and I think again most (I only avoid the term "all" out of an abundance of caution) Orthodox the deal breaker is papal primacy and Vatican I. The language in the decrees of the First Vatican Council regarding the universal jurisdiction of the Pope and his infallibility are regarded as heresy by almost all Orthodox. And unfortunately the language used in those decrees is so crystal clear and unambiguous that there is not really any wiggle room for creative reinterpretation or "doctrinal development."

Wherefore we teach and declare that,

• by divine ordinance,
• the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
• this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
  • episcopal and
  • immediate.
• Both clergy and faithful,
  • of whatever rite and dignity,
  • both singly and collectively,
• are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
  • not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
  • but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.
    

And...

So, then,

• if anyone says that
  • the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
    • not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
    • not only in matters of
      • faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
      • discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
  • he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
  • this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
  let him be anathema.
  

This is just not acceptable to the Orthodox Church.

In fairness we Orthodox, partly from historical circumstances, have been very clear in articulating what primacy is not, and not particularly clear about what it is. Indeed until recent times the subject has not really been much on anyone's agenda. There really was no need. However some years ago the late +John Paul Magnus of blessed memory issued a challenge to the Orthodox world to give our interpretation of the function of the Roman See. The silence was deafening. Now we are coming to the point where the silence will need to be broken. At the forthcoming session of the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue the topic is to be the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Church. I would give a lot of money that I don't have to be a fly on the wall of that meeting (with a universal translator).

As an interesting background to this, the chilly relations between Moscow and Constantinople seem to be growing cooler. Moscow has long accused the Patriarchate of New Rome of meddling in the affairs of the other churches (Russia's in particular) and of asserting a jurisdiction it does not have. Whereas +Bartholomew and the Synod of Bishops in Constantinople have been taking a more expansive view of things. Met. +John of Pergagmum, one of the foremost theologians in the Orthodox Church today, has strongly hinted at a broader interpretation of primacy than what has been normative within Orthodoxy. Of course nothing he has written even comes close to supporting the monarchical claims of the First Vatican Council. It is with this fascinating mix of church politics as a background that we see Moscow announcing that it is preparing an official position on the subject of primacy in the Church.

The Interfax News Service reports...

‘Our principal affirmation is this: primacy in the Church is necessary, also on the universal level, but on the level of the Universal Church it cannot be the primacy of jurisdiction but only the primacy of honour’, Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, Russian Church representative to European organizations, told Interfax on Monday.

‘There can be no compromises’ in this matter for the Moscow Patriarchate, he said. The aim of the theological dialogue is not to make a compromise but to identify the original understanding of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the early undivided Church, he noted.

‘Historically, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Christian Church, from our point of view, was that of honour, not jurisdiction. That is to say, the jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome was never applied to all the Churches’, the bishop stressed.

No real surprises there. However, one might begin to wonder just who Moscow is taking aim at when reading a little farther down we note...

‘We consider it (the primacy of Constantinople - IF) exclusively as primacy of honour, while the See of Constantinople itself tends occasionally to give a broad interpretation to this primacy. These are the questions I believe around which principal problems will emerge’, Bishop Hilarion said.

We aint called "byzantine" for nothing.

All of the politics aside, the bottom line remains. Vatican I is the show stopper. I know of no Orthodox hierarch or credible theologian who would accept it. All of the other debates won't amount to a hill of beans because Vat. I is a nonnegotiable for the Roman Catholics and also for the Orthodox. In order to overcome it one or the other would have to cease to be what they are. And that is not gonna happen.