Pope: Interpretation and capacity of the petrine ministry divides us from the orthodox

29 June, 2005 VATICAN Pope: Interpretation and capacity of the petrine ministry divides us from the orthodox

But many are the things which unite us, he said, turning to the delegation of the ecumenical patriarchate present in St Peter’s for the feast of the prince of apostles.

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – “Interpretation and capacity” of the petrine ministry, that is the role and competence of the bishop of Rome, who is the pope, divide Catholics and Orthodox, but “we are together in the apostolic succession, we are deeply united with one another for the episcopal ministry and for the sacrament of the priesthood and we confess the same faith of the Apostles as it was given to us in Scripture and as it was interpreted by the great councils.”

Today’s words of Benedict XVI on the occasion of Mass for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul practically constituted a stand on ecumenical relations with the orthodox. As usual on this occasion, a delegation of the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople was present and they received a warm greeting from the pope. There is more which unites us than divides us, was basically what Benedict XVI said, although he did underline, both during the celebration as before the Angelus, that the “petrine ministry… cannot be renounced”. He recalled that such has existed since the time of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul; that is when Christians did not know division.

The “petrine ministry”, in the words read by the pope during Mass, is “an expression of our communion” which in essence has its “visible guarantee”. “With unity, as well as with apostolicism, is linked the petrine ministry, which visibly unites the Church in all places and in all times, defending each of us in this way from slipping into false autonomies, which too easily become internal particularizations of the Church and could thus compromise its internal independence”. Highlighting that at the end “the sense of all functions and ministries is that ‘we all arrive at unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God”, Benedict XVI turned to the orthodox delegation sent by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, to whom he extended a cordial greeting. Led by the Metropolitan Ioannis, the delegation came to our feast and participates in our celebration.

Even if we do not yet agree on the question of interpretation and full extent of the petrine ministry, we are however already together on the issue of apostolic succession, we are profoundly linked with one another on episcopal ministry and the sacrament of the priesthood and we confess the same faith in the Apostles as revealed to us in scripture and as interpreted for us by the great Councils. At this time, in a world full of skepticism and doubts, but also rich in the desire for God, we recognize once again our mission to testify together to Christ our Lord and on the basis of this unity, which is already given to us, to help the world to believe. And we ask the Lord with all our heart to lead us to full unity so that the splendour of the truth, which alone can create unity, will become once again visible in the world.” On the day on which the Church of Rome remembers its patrons, even visibly through the statue of St Peter in the basilica, dressed in a tiara and with pontifical vestments and the “net of the fisherman”, Benedict XVI told 20,000 people present for the Angelus that “the primacy of the Church which is in Rome and its bishop is a primacy of service to Catholic communion. Departing from the twofold event of the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul, all the Churches began to regard that of Rome as a central point of reference of doctrinal and pastoral unity”.

The Pope then recalled that Vatican II confirmed that “in ecclesiastical communion, there are legitimately specific churches, with their own traditions, while however there is the primacy of the seat of Peter, which presides over universal communion of charity, safeguards legitimate differences and together keeps watch until that which is specific not only does not harm unity, but rather serves it”. “May the Virgin Mary obtain for us that the petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome is not seen as a stumbling block but as a support in the journey on the road to unity.” (FP).

Although I always rant about the paranoia of Patriarch Alexei of Moscow, it really doesn't look like the Vatican is about to make any concessions to the Orthodox to foster unity. Sometimes I feel they do soublespeak. On one hand, they act as though union is very important (union meaning you come over to our side). Roman Catholic ecclesiology is more a matter of historical development draped in a quasi dogmatic evening gown. Yes, Rome was the center of the Empire and Peter and Paul were martyred there thus the Bishop of Rome should have a special place of honor. Because the west was far more plunged into the Dark Ages due to Germanic invasions than the east, the Pope took on the role of emperor in a sense. The eastern practice of collegiality among the episcopate is the more original practice. On the other hand, the vast majority of Popes after Trent have been good men (unlike the Borgia and Medici popes that came before) and it has "worked" to have a unifying personage as the Pope to rally around.

"Because the west was far more plunged into the Dark Ages due to Germanic invasions than the east, the Pope took on the role of emperor in a sense. The eastern practice of collegiality among the episcopate is the more original practice."

This point has come up before.

The Latin Church is centralized unlike the Orthodox for two reasons.

1) There was only one Patriarch in the Latin West.

2) Rome has never granted any of its major daughter Churches true Patriarchal status (such as possessed by Moscow vis-a-vis Constantinople, and unlike the Petit Patriarchs of Serbia or Romania).

The Church of Rome formerly had other major Apostolic sees in the West to relate to such as Carthage and Toledo. However, the Islamic catastrophe (and also the German invasions) utterly destroyed the Church in those regions. Subsequently, every Church in the West not already subject to the jurisdiction of Rome by the Nicene Canons was created subject to them in accord with the Canon of Constantinople I that the Churches among the barbarians are in the jurisdiction of the Patriarch who evangelized them. Since Rome sent out the evangelizers of the Irish, English, Germans, Czechs, Poles, Croats, Hungarians, Scadanavians, Balts, Mexicans, South Americans, etc., quite rightly by the canonical order the Orthodox recognize, did the Pope come to be the Patriarch of all these peoples.

OTOH, when the Patriarchate of Antioch reunited with Rome in 1724, the Pope did not subject the Melkites to his own Patriarchate, but rather maintained them in their privileges.

The Pope's modern role in ruling so many does not come from being a quasi-Emperor, but from strict canonical order.

Now as to Eastern collegiality - this obviously had its limits given the pretensions and civil role of the Patriarch of Constantinople, both under the Empire and the Caliphate. For this reason, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria came to live at Constantinople, and for this reason the Melkites were induced to drop their traditional liturgy for the use of Constantinople (just as Rome did to Spain and Gaul). The modern discovery of Orthodox collegiality would have been quite foreign to these medieval Patriarchs with their centralization of authority in the East.

If the Roman Church really believed that the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch was a real "Patriarch of Antioch and all the East" due all the ancient privileges of that see, they wouldn't have a Maronite holding the title of "Patriarch of Antioch and all the East," and wouldn't have maintained a Latin Patriarchate in Antioch deep into the 20th century, nor would they have a Syrian "Patriarch of Antioch and all the East."

In fact, if, as the Maronites claim, they have been in continual communion and obedience to the throne of Rome from the time of the Apostles, the Roman Church wouldn't have recognized the Melkite schismatics, but rather would have told them to go under the Maronite hierarchy back in the 1700's, since the Maronites laid claim to having the "real" Patriarch of Antioch.

I am no expert in the intricacies of Near-East ecclesiology, but I think I can spot callous opportunism when I see it. Kolokotronis probably knows much more about "the reunion of the Patriarchate of Antioch with Rome" than I do. He also knows at least a little more of the history of how the Eastern Patriarchates survived Ottoman rule. I will leave further comments to him, should he be interested in making any.

According to the most recent papal encyclical that I have read on the subject, Rome still has all the escape clauses necessary to be allowed to intervene unilaterally in any "independent" Eastern Catholic "Patriarchate." And what measure of independence that actually does exist is, for most of the Eastern Catholics, very recent (for all practical purposes, post Vat II.)

Whatever may have happened in the Orthodox East under Ottoman rule, it was reversed when the combination of Greek independence and growing Russian influence in the Middle East gave the Ottomans something else to think about. Whatever violence may have been done to the practice of conciliarity and equality of bishops during Orthodox history, the principle has remained a firm part of our heritage that is undeniably alive and well.

If your point is that the only reason that the Orthodox are conciliar is that we don't know our own heritage (quite a familiar theme, that), then I have to say that it is a non-starter.

My point was that what now passes as conciliarity was a rather recent (re?)development in the Orthodox Church, given the heavy hand that Constantinople had for so long freely wielded, and that the behavior of Constaninople in the period in which the Orthodox castigate the Catholics for the "growth" of the Papacy saw exactly the same trends and pretensions within their own Church, complete with enforced liturgical uniformity, decorative Patriarchs sitting at court, and pretentious titles (i.e., Ecumenical Patriarch). All he lacked was a St. Peter in his background.

The non-Melkite Patriarchs of Antioch are comical Petit Patriarchs along the lines of the "Patriarch of Venice" and the "Patriarch of Serbia". These are more titles of pride than of historical or ecclesiastical reality. For example, the Syrian Catholic Church you mention, originating as it does from the Jacobite schism, could hardly claim to be a legitimate chain of Antiochean Patriarchs, seeing as their origin is in a mass of double Bishops created for the non-Chalcedonian faithful.

From my own view, there are seven real Patriarchs worthy of the name - the Pentarchy, Moscow, and Cstesiphon (Assyrian Church of the East). These are the only ones who ever exercised any real Patriarchal authority, as understood in the Canons of the first 4 Councils.

"I am no expert in the intricacies of Near-East ecclesiology, but I think I can spot callous opportunism when I see it. Kolokotronis probably knows much more about "the reunion of the Patriarchate of Antioch with Rome" than I do. He also knows at least a little more of the history of how the Eastern Patriarchates survived Ottoman rule."

Actually, you've pointed out the big "fly" in Rome's Antiochian ointment, a fly even Hermann should have recognized. Right now there are five or six claimants ( among them Non Chalcedonians and Nestorians) to the title "Patriarch of Antioch". The only claimant to the Antiochian See within the Apostolic Succession which begins with St. Peter and was maintained on the diptychs at Rome until the Great Schism is Ignatius IV, the Orthodox Patriarch. Rome recognized certain other "patriarchs", for example the Melkite and Maronite claimants sometime after the Schism when the former group renounced Orthodoxy and came over to Rome under the guidance of French Crusaders (they were in a fight with the Byzantines at the time) and the latter when the French came up against them in the Mount Lebanon area. The Maronites had been schismatics from The Church from centuries before.

The experience of The Church under the Ottomans was a sorry one. As we all know, the Ottomans had a "millyet" system whereby different ethnicities had a degree of subservient autonomy within the Caliphate. The Patriarch of Constantinople was designated the Ethnarc of the Christians by the Ottomans and acted in an almost Papal role when it came to all Christians within the Ottoman Empire. It is certainly fair to say that the concept of conciliarity which had been before the fall of the City and since the Greek War of Independence, a hallmark of Orthodoxy, fell somewhat by the wayside during the Turkokratia. It was a very bad time. Many of the EPs were holy and good men, but many others were truly evil secular rulers who, like so many of the Roman Popes, came to the throne by bribery, extortion, out right purchase of the office or even murder. During the Greek War of Independence, the Turks hung the Patriarch of Constantinople from the gate of the Patriarchate as a punishment for not keeping the Greeks under control which was his function as envisioned by the Turks. Since then the EP has had little or no secular influence. Here's a snip from a comment on the website of the GOA:

"It was likewise the Church's fate to be affected by the Turkish system of corruption. The patriarchal throne was frequently sold to the highest bidder, while new patriarchal investiture was accompanied by heavy payment to the government. In order to recoup their losses, patriarchs and bishops taxed the local parishes and their clergy. Nor was the patriarchal throne ever secure. Few patriarchs between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries died a natural death while in office. The forced abdications, exiles, hangings, drownings, and poisonings of patriarchs are well documented. But if the patriarch's position was precarious so was the hierarchy's. The hanging of patriarch Gregory V from the gate of the patriarchate on Easter Sunday 1821 was accompanied by the execution of two metropolitans and twelve bishops. (The gate still remains closed in St. Gregory's memory.) The above summary - stark and short as it is - is sufficient to convey the persecution, decay, and humiliation that Eastern Christendom suffered under Ottoman rule. If we add to this tragic fate the militant communist atheism under which most Orthodox lived after 1917, we get some sense of the dislocation and suffering of Eastern Christianity in the last five hundred years. The grave problems that western Christians had to face as a result of the French Revolution and the secularization of western society in general might be said to pale against these facts."

As for the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria "residing" at Constantinople, I didn't know this, but I suspect it was during the Turkokratia and it can't have been for long. In the meantime of course, the Patriarchate of Moscow was able to maintain its freedom of action both from Rome and the Turks.

The Maronites had been schismatics from The Church from centuries before

We have rehashed that recently. The Maronites were not brought into the union with Rome officially until 1548, following the Council of Florence, who were at their conversion described as people who were under the error of Macarius. It was not until the early 16th century that they participated as full-fledged Catholics.

As for "petit" Patriarchs -- Serbia's population is as big as that of Greece. And Moscow claims almost 90% of world's Orthodox. Thus, to the MP, everyone else is "petit." We just don't use such arrogant language because it is not in our "corporate culture" so to say, Hermann. The Patriarch of Serbia has an equal vote with that of the Patriarch of Moscow of the EP, and neither Patriarch will interfere in the internal affairs of the Serbian Church, as is the case now with the Ohrid Archiosese and the so-called "Macedonian Orthodox Church."

One does not gain the status of patriarchate by the size of the population, but by how "mature" the Church is. The EP is not an arrogant title as you imply -- in liturguical languages Constantinople is referred to as the Imperial City (Tsarigrad in Slavonic), and it was my understanding that Ecumenical was synonimous with Imperial.

Let's not forget that Justian made himself the ruler of the Church and that Rome listened and obeyed. And let's not forget that the honor was accorded as was a custom, to those who represented a location of importance, Old Rome being first and then Constantinople, the Ecumenical Capital. The primacy had nothing to do with who ruled the church, as the west implied.

The Pope is right: we don't see the Petrine primacy the same way (he says "still"). If collegiality was disturbed under the Muslim rulers, it was an aberration, not "corporate culture" (a la Dictatus Papae). Collegiality wasn't (re?)invented as you suggest, but resurrected. That's a good staring point for further understaning bretween our Churches; a little collegiality can go very far.

And one more thing: with all due respect to this Pope, who is a humble and good Father: we do not profess the same Faith

The only claimant to the Antiochian See within the Apostolic Succession which begins with St. Peter and was maintained on the diptychs at Rome until the Great Schism is Ignatius IV, the Orthodox Patriarch. Rome recognized certain other "patriarchs", for example the Melkite and Maronite claimants sometime after the Schism when the former group renounced Orthodoxy and came over to Rome under the guidance of French Crusaders

No, the Melkite Catholics originated in a 1724 schism in the Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch. The Melkite Patriarch was elected first and caused a union with Rome that had already been attempted by his predecessor without success (his profession of faith was deemed insufficient in Rome). In rejecting this new Patriarch and the Union, the remaining Orthodox elected a second Patriarch and proclaimed him to be the only real one, precisely because he had not gone over to Rome.

As for the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria "residing" at Constantinople, I didn't know this, but I suspect it was during the Turkokratia and it can't have been for long. In the meantime of course, the Patriarchate of Moscow was able to maintain its freedom of action both from Rome and the Turks.

This started in the period of the collapse of the Roman Empire after Mazinkert, and the subsequent Crusader era. The Turks merely continued over an already existing policy.

The Latin Patriarchs originated around the same time and for precisely the reason that the Orthodox Patriarchs had left and taken up residence in Constantinople. At the end of the Crusades, the Latin Patriarchs decamped to Rome, where they becaome decorative ecclesiastical furniture.

The freedom of the Moscow Patriarch, and its broad scope of mission (Poland to America, and the Black Sea to the Arctic) is the reason it has waxed so strong into a true Patriarchate.

The accounts that I have read from Orthodox sources indicate that the Orthodox Patriarch was elected first. There may have been a little rewriting of history, which as Kosta so nicely demonstrated recently vis a vis the Maronites, is hardly unusual. Ultimately in a case like this, it doesn't matter.

Even if the Melkite had been elected first, from an Orthodox perspective, any union with Rome without Rome returning to Orthodox belief would be a false one. The other clergy and faithful would have been fully justified in declaring the throne vacant at that time, and electing a new Patriarch.

And the other Orthodox Patriarchates would have been correct to recognize the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, and reject the Melkite. The apostolic succession is not a technical exercise of election followed by a magical ritual of laying on of hands. It is a succession of passing on the teachings of the Church intact that is melded with the Holy Mystery of Consecration.

That said, it would appear that the Melkites are perhaps amongst the Eastern Catholics who are closest to the Orthodox in faith, practice, and spirit. As I recall, the Melkite Patriarch was one of the most vocal at Vatican II, leading to the shift in direction in Rome's treatment of Eastern Catholics.

The Maronites were not brought into the union with Rome officially until 1448

They were brought into union in 1182 by the Crusaders. This is certain, because their self-styled Patriarch attneded the 4th Council of the Lateran in 1215. Some relapsed into Monothelitism (specifically in Cyprus) and were converted again after the time of Florence.

As for "petit" Patriarchs -- Serbia's population is as big as that of Greece.

And Moscow claims almost 90% of world's Orthodox.

An accident of history due to western and Russian passivity in the face of the utter destruction of the Greek Church between 1800 and 1925 by the Turkish fury.

Thus, to the MP, everyone else is "petit." We just don't use such arrogant language because it is not in our "corporate culture" so to say, Hermann.

I made up the term myself to describe the reality.

One does not gain the status of patriarchate by the size of the population, but by how "mature" the Church is.

Surely then the Greek Churches in Greece and Cyprus should have its own Patriarchs, seeing as these date from the time of St. Paul and are obviously "mature". Of course this isn't the case, and maturity clearly has nothing at all to do with it.

The modern Serbian Patriarchate stems from lengthy quarrels with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and attempts by the Serbs to extricate themselves from his jurisdiction, only succeeding in 1879.

The proliferation of Patriarchates in the east is a matter of status, phyletism, and self-conscious imitation of the Great Church. The Bulgarians and Serbians both clearly believed they wouldn't be "real" Christians until they had their own Patriarch and Emperor, just like they saw in Constantinople. The distant history of the Serbian Patriarchate, for example, stems from the mid 14th century, when the Serb ruler arrogated to himself the title "Imperator Rasciae et Romanie" during the Roman Civil War in the times of St. Gregory Palamas.

The EP is not an arrogant title as you imply -- in liturguical languages Constantinople is referred to as the Imperial City (Tsarigrad in Slavonic), and it was my understanding that Ecumenical was synonimous with Imperial.

The title implies that he is patriarch of the entire "Oecumene". When assumed, it was taken as pretensions of universality, as St. Gregory the Great stated to St. John that "having attempted to put all his members under thyself by the appellation of Universal ... thou desirest to put thyself above them [thy brother Bishops] by this proud title, and to tread down their name in comparison with thine"(Letters 5.18)

Let's not forget that Justian made himself the ruler of the Church and that Rome listened and obeyed.

Are we talking about the same Emperor Justinian who wrote to Pope John (http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/jus-code.htm):

With honor to the Apostolic See, and to your Holiness, which is, and always has been remembered in Our prayers, both now and formerly, and honoring your happiness, as is proper in the case of one who is considered as a father, We hasten to bring to the knowledge of Your Holiness everything relating to the condition of the Church, as We have always had the greatest desire to preserve the unity of your Apostolic See, and the condition of the Holy Churches of God, as they exist at the present time, that they may remain without disturbance or opposition. Therefore, We have exerted Ourselves to unite all the priests of the East and subject them to the See of Your Holiness, and hence the questions which have at present arisen, although they are manifest and free from doubt, and according to the doctrines of your Apostolic See, are constantly firmly observed and preached by all priests, We have still considered it necessary that they should be brought to the attention of Your Holiness. For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church, even though what causes difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your See.

Collegiality wasn't (re?)invented as you suggest, but resurrected. That's a good staring point for further understaning bretween our Churches; a little collegiality can go very far.

I used the term (re?)developed. I think it is appropriate.

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.