The primacy: a help, not a weight

30 Days ^ | September 2005 | interview with Metropolitan Philarete of Minsk by Gianni Valente

[Petrosius]

ORTHODOX. The topics of the next theological dialogue with the Catholics
The primacy: a help, not a weight

«The exercise of the primacy, at every level, must serve the life and growth of the Church, and not be an obstacle to it». An interview with Metropolitan Philarete of Minsk

interview with Metropolitan Philarete of Minsk by Gianni Valente

 

Metropolitan Philarete of Minsk in Bielorussia at the international inter-religious conference entitled ?The courage of a humanism of peace? organized by the Community of Sant'Egidio in Lyons from 11 to 13 September 2005

      At last, a new start. After years of stalemate, the official theological dialogue between the Church of Rome and the Byzantine Orthodox Churches is setting down on the agenda dates and problems to be faced on the way back to the full visible unity. And this time, the ecumenic Road Map will aim right at the question of the primacy, the nerve point on which all the difficulties that still prevent full sacramental communion between Catholics and Orthodox  center.
      The next plenary meting should be hosted by the Church of Serbia within 2006. Head of the Orthodox  delegation will be, as announced, the Metropolitan of Pergamum Ioannis Zizioulas, who expressed his authoritative reflections on the question of the primacy in detailed fashion in the last number of 30Days.
      Zizioulas is a member of the Synod of the Ecumenic Patriarchy and recognized by all as one of the most authoritative living theologians. But can his clear and lucid observations be considered representative of the whole of Orthodoxy? And above all, do they gain the agreement of the exponents of the Patriarchy of Moscow that, as “majority” Orthodox Church, is perforce destined to influence the results of the theological dialogue in definitive manner?
      Philarete of Minsk, exarch patriarch of Bielorussia, chairs the theologico-doctrinal Commission of the Holy Synod of the Russian Church Orthodox. He is the proper person to know what the Orthodox beyond the Dnieper think of the primacy. 30Days interviewed him at the meeting organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio in Lyons from 11 to 13 September.
     
      Your Eminence, in the last number of 30Days the Metropolitan of Pergamum Ioannis declared that in order to proceed with the dialogue there must be recognition of the fact that the primacy is a part of the essence of the Church.
      PHILARETE Of MINSK: Certainly. The question of the primacy concerns the doctrine of the faith. It is not just a question of human organization. And the problem lies precisely here. Already in the 4th century what is known as the Canon of the Apostles number 34 established that «the bishops must recognize the primus amongst them and do nothing without him... but not even the primus can do anything without the others. So, by means of this unity, God will be glorified in the Holy Spirit».
      Ioannis of Pergamum quoted precisely Canon 34 as a good starting point for reopening the dialogue on the question of the primacy between Orthodox and Catholics. Do you go along with the suggestion?
      PHILARETE: Canon 34 already pointed out that the primacy is an essential datum in the nature of the Church, as is synodality. At the same time, one can’t repropose this type of question without keeping in mind the way they have been historically applied. It is not a matter of a pre-existing, abstract, atemporal situation…
      In short, the problem to discuss is rather «what kind of primacy is being thought of»…
      PHILARETE: If one looks at history, it happened that over time the Church of Rome, though without saying so aloud, claimed that the genuine bishop is one who subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Pope. This subjection, in the form that prevailed in the Church of Rome, seems to have become the source and foundation of the authentic apostolic succession. Whereas, the dignity of all the bishops is perfectly equal, having all received from the Holy Spirit the same grace. I have spoken about this with quite a few Catholic fellow bishops, and in peculiar with some German bishops. They insisted in saying that things are not so, and that Catholic ecclesiology is not so. But on a theological plane even the business of the Filioque confirms it…
      In what way?
      PHILARETE: East and West both confess the Church one, holy, catholic and apostolic. We confess the same Symbol of apostolic faith, defined by the first early ecumenical councils after a great many complex discussions. So much so that the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus introduced the rule of not recognizing any further addition to the Symbol of Niceno-Constantinopolitan faith. They feared that adding even only one word would be a catastrophe, would restart discussion all over again. But precisely by making reference to his own primatial title, the one who considered himself the «first bishop» was able to sanction the addition of the Filioque to the Symbol of the faith. So that still today in Catholic parishes one professes that the Holy Spirit «proceeds from the Father and the Son»…

	20th century icon showing Saint Irenaeus in the crypt of the church of that name in Lyons

      Ioannis of Pergamum claims that for the Orthodox to grasp the relation between the primacy and the nature of the Church it’s enough to look at its own tradition. In the Orthodox Church there have never been synods without primates.
      PHILARETE: The Orthodox Churches recognize the primacy in honor of the Ecumenic Patriarch. In the competition between the ancient patriarchies of the East, Constantinople in the end prevailed and its archbishop assumed the title of ecumenic patriarch. But the primus of Constantinople wanted to be like the primus of Rome… So this primacy also isn’t conceived in univocal fashion. And sometimes the want of unanimity in the interpretation of the Constantinopolitan primacy becomes an obstacle to the normal development of relations even within the Orthodox East. The autocephalous Orthodox Churches at times feel this primacy as a limitation to their own organic development. In all these events human and psychological factors also come into play that can hardly be totally aside. That is why there is need to guarantee that these primatial prerogatives serve the life and growth of the Churches, and don’t end instead by being an obstacle to them.
      According to Zizioulas, dialogue on the primacy between Catholics and Orthodox should start from the axiom dear to the Orthodox theologian Afanasieff: where there is the Eucharist, there is the Church one, holy, catholic, apostolic.
      PHILARETE: Without doubt. The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Church, the sacrament of sacraments. Wherever the Eucharist is celebrated by a priest consecrated in legitimate manner, according to the canon that the Churches recognize as the legitimate canon, the Church is present and it is possible to live the fullness of the experience of the Church, that is not belonging to an ethno-religious social group, but belonging to Christ himself. No primacy can be exercised at the expense of this catholic fullness of the local Church. Whereas in the Catholic Church the pope projects his ecclesiastical power over the whole earth. And this also complicates the relations with the sister Orthodox Churches.
      On that subject, when the Patriarchy of Moscow accused the Catholic Church of encroaching on its proper «canonical territory», it was precisely you who introduced interesting arguments into the debate, that few people in the West noticed...
      PHILARETE: The reaction of the Patriarchy of Moscow was discounted as a defensive move by someone who was afraid of losing amounts of ecclesiastical power. But it was above all an indirect testimony that the Patriarchy of Moscow considers its relation with the Church of Rome as a relation between sister Churches, that are fully recognized as such, and they belong to the same Church, one, holy, catholic, apostolic. The very argument of «canonical territory» can only be used towards Churches with which one recognizes one shares the same depositum fidei and the validity of the apostolic succession. We certainly haven’t used it towards the aggressive infiltration of the sects. It was the same argument used by Saint Paul when he wrote in the Epistle to the Romans: «I have made it a point of honor not to proclaim the gospel except where the name of Christ had not yet arrived, so as not to build on another’s foundations».
      In Bielorussia, at all events, there have been fewer problems.
      PHILARETE: I was the one to raise the question in front of the state bureaucrats responsible for ecclesiastical questions: why – I asked – is there an historical presence of Catholic parishes in Bielorussia and not even one Catholic bishop to govern them? In some cases the presence of a bishop is also a guarantee of order, because when there is no bishop parishes often begin to quarrel… And in fact after a short while three prelates arrived from the Vatican, and among other things told me that there was the idea of sending a bishop to Bielorussia. «There’s no problem», I answered. And so first appeared a bishop, and then Catholic theological schools were also opened. The situation in Russia, was quite different when neither the Patriarch nor the Synod were informed of Vatican intentions, and bishops were also sent to places where historically there were no Catholic episcopal sees. With this I mean to say that a fair number of the problems have arisen because of a question of procedure, for the way the process took place. Perhaps it would have been enough to explain better.

Following the holy Fathers is not a theoretical question for me, but has to do with our life in the Church and with our salvation. They should become a substantial element in pastoral practice and in daily life. During the period of the Community of Sant'Egidio conference in Lyons I was happy to be able to venerate the relics of Saint Irenaeus, who for me is the Father of all the Fathers

      Instead, into these querelle, someone on the Catholic side appealed to civic rights, to democracy and even to the need to let the “free market” in religious offerings expand in Russia. What do think of the recourse to such secular arguments to shape relations between sister Churches?
      PHILARETE: They’re eye-catching arguments. The truth is that in the break-up of the Soviet social system the Church of Rome has tried to extend in Russia, in mechanical and uncreative fashion, the operational religious-social model that was in those years in use in the West. With the result that in Russia the Catholics have taken on the features of a typical social ghetto, and have been compared to the sects. That is to the many groups that landed with money, that have begun to broadcast ideas that are a travesty of Christianity. Above all this has upset many people who’ve begun to think: this is where we’ve ended up by going along with the ecumenic movement. It was certainly a mistaken deduction. But it also explains the intolerance now felt in Russia for ecumenicalism.
      Perhaps, on the path to unity, some commonplaces in the ecumenic dialogue look old-hat. Whereas you have stressed the importance of always looking together at the Fathers of the Church.
      PHILARETE: The motto of our theologians in the first quarter of the 20th century was: forward, toward the Fathers. The faith of the Church is one and immutable, because the Church is the unity of the life of grace that comes unbroken down to us from the holy apostles and from the holy Fathers. The Church is the Church of the apostles, it is the Church of the Fathers. Instead now in the Church the Fathers are studied as people worthy of all respect but as if they had nothing to offer to everyday Christian life. There is an academico-decorative approach to them, at most they’re considered as a good source of quotations or as a field of study to be left to the scrutiny of the few cognizant. Instead, following the holy Fathers is not a theoretical question for me, but has to do with our life in the Church and with our salvation. They should become a substantial element in pastoral practice and in daily life. During the period of the Communion of Sant’Egidio conference in Lyons I was happy to be able to venerate the relics of Saint Irenaeus, who for me is the Father of all the Fathers.
      As chairman of the theological Commission of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church what do you think of the approach of Pope Ratzinger to relations between the Church of Rome and Churches of East?
      PHILARETE: I fulfil the task of chairman of the theological Commission only out of obedience. I seek only to bring together people so they can work together. I don’t know in detail the theological works that the new Pope wrote when he was a theologian. But I know that he is a great figure and a great mind. For that matter, the Holy Inquisition has always been led by intelligent people… (laughter).

[Petrosius]

I find the following quote extremely interesting:

The reaction of the Patriarchy of Moscow [i.e. accusing the Catholic Church of encroaching on its proper «canonical territory»] was discounted as a defensive move by someone who was afraid of losing amounts of ecclesiastical power. But it was above all an indirect testimony that the Patriarchy of Moscow considers its relation with the Church of Rome as a relation between sister Churches, that are fully recognized as such, and they belong to the same Church, one, holy, catholic, apostolic. The very argument of «canonical territory» can only be used towards Churches with which one recognizes one shares the same depositum fidei and the validity of the apostolic succession. We certainly haven’t used it towards the aggressive infiltration of the sects.

[Petrosius]

Ping!

[NYer]

A most interesting interview. Thank you for the post!

Of one thing we can all be certain, Pope Benedict XVI is TOTALLY committed to reunification, as was his predecissor JPII. We can only pray that we live to see this joyous event, in our lifetimes.

[Kolokotronis]

This is excellent! This is Orthodoxy!

[Kolokotronis]

Ping

[Petrosius]

Philarete of Minsk, exarch patriarch of Bielorussia

What is this? Is it the same as patriarch?

[Kolokotronis]

"Philarete of Minsk, exarch patriarch of Bielorussia"

+Philarete is the Metropolitan of Minsk and is the exarch of the Patriarch of Moscow in Bielorussia. The article either left out a word or two or the translation is off a bit. I suppose in theory +Demetrios, the GOA Archbishop is the exarch of the EP here in America and the Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland is the exarch of the Pope there.

[RKBA Democrat]

That was a fascinating quote. And a different perspective from what I've seen.

This is one to think about and comment on later.

[Kolokotronis]

"That was a fascinating quote. And a different perspective from what I've seen."

Some of us around here have been saying this very thing for a couple of years now. Kosta springs to mind as does Agrarian. Nobody seemed to want to listen to us though. Of course we're not hierarchs (probably a good thing!); Kosta and I are just a pair of old Balkan mountain bandits (I do, however, look quite dangerous in my foustenella!) and Agrarian, well Agrarian's just a boot wearing, dung shoveling farm boy! :)

[RKBA Democrat]

"Some of us around here have been saying this very thing for a couple of years now."

Sometimes it's the way things are said. And let's face it, I don't claim to be all that bright. :-)

The hierarch said this in a way that actually made it click.

Perhaps our assorted Balkan mountain bandits and farm boys can further translate into terms that a western european serf could understand. Be sure to use small words, no more than two syllables.....

[x5452]

I rather like the following sentance:

"It was the same argument used by Saint Paul when he wrote in the Epistle to the Romans: «I have made it a point of honor not to proclaim the gospel except where the name of Christ had not yet arrived, so as not to build on another’s foundations». "

[x5452]

From OrthodoxWiki:
Exarchate: often a missionary diocese, though traditionally referring to a diocese in which there is only one bishop with authority, who is often referred to as an exarch.

[RKBA Democrat]

I'm curious about your perspective on this. Is is just my imagination, or are the Orthodox hierarchs beginning to view ecumenism in something more of a pragmatic light?

To me, the issue of ecumenism is best approached from the point of view of doing what makes practical sense and then allowing the other theological pieces of the puzzle fall into place as they are wont (or not wont) to do. Familiarity tends to breed respect.

Frankly, I'm not much attracted by the idea that ecumenism should be pursued for it's own sake. But I do see some compelling practical reasons why it makes good sense.

[jecIIny]

A fascinating article. Your quote stood out to me in the text as well. I won't call it an earthquake. But it might be a precursor to a small tremor in the Orthodox world.

[Petrosius]

I think that the quote has significance beyond the question of theology or canon law. Without trying to minimize some real theological questions, especially concerning the papacy, I believe that the biggest huddle to be overcome is that of mutual suspicion. If we were all to accept that, however imperfectly, we do indeed share the same apostolic faith then we will have taken the first important step in repairing the breach in the Church that must so wound the heart of our Lord.

[Agrarian]

"Agrarian, well Agrarian's just a boot wearing, dung shoveling farm boy! :)"

Finally, K, you are willing to say something nice about me!

[Agrarian]

There are a couple of things that I have been saying repeatedly that play into this, although they may not be the points that Kolokotronis is thinking of. I won't presume to speak for the Balkan bandits:

1. If you want to see what a church believes, watch what they do. The evidence is clear from the fact that Orthodoxy has never created an Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome that she has never stopped holding out hope that there will be a return of Rome to the Orthodox faith, not as individual Christians, but as a Patriarchate that Orthodoxy has never stopped considering to be in existence, even if in schism and error, from our perspective.

By contrast, Rome has established numerous parallel Patriarchates, leaving the implication that either Rome in practice doesn't consider the Orthodox Patriarchates to be real Patriarchates -- or perhaps that no Patriarchate really has any intrinsic or relevant meaning in light of the overwhelming stature of the universal jurisdiction of the Pope.

2. With regard to the strong reactions to matters in Eastern Europe, the message is being sent to Rome that one cannot have it both ways. One cannot be having dialogue with an Orthodox hierarchy that one professes to wish union with, and be simultaneously working to establish and expand a parallel eastern rite hierarchy in the same geographical territory. The former action says that it considers Orthodoxy to be a real church, and the latter says that it does not.

Orthodoxy's strong reaction to these "territorial" issues has been portrayed as petty and not in the spirit of free enterprise, or whatever. It can very easily rather be interpreted as Russia treating Rome as a real church, and the bishop of Rome as a real bishop. This should be a message relevant to any ongoing dialogue.

The message is not an unmixed one, since when one looks at the strict line that Orthodoxy has taken on intercommunion and reception of converts vis a vis Catholicism, one sees that while Orthodoxy may treat Rome like a Patriarchate on equal standing, even though not in communion with her, the distance to be travelled is very, very far before there can be true union.

[Kolokotronis]

"I'm curious about your perspective on this. Is is just my imagination, or are the Orthodox hierarchs beginning to view ecumenism in something more of a pragmatic light?"

Interesting that you should say that. That isn't the impression I get at all. I think their interest is at base founded in the Eucharistic theology of the First Millenium, especially of the first 500 years or so of the Church.

"To me, the issue of ecumenism is best approached from the point of view of doing what makes practical sense and then allowing the other theological pieces of the puzzle fall into place as they are wont (or not wont) to do. Familiarity tends to breed respect."

Well, I think that's precisely what the EP and the Metropolitan of Minsk are talking about, especially the EP. As has been observed on other threads here, the theological issues have pretty well been dealt with, at least as far as they can be without a Great Council, but there won't be a Great Council until the role of the pope can be determined and accepted by the Orthodox and likely the Non-Chalcedonians because the pope or his legate must preside. Thus the practical issue is that of the proper exercise of the Petrine Office. At this point, at least for the hierarchy and the theologians, there really isn't anything else of substance to discuss. That isn't to say that there aren't things for us to discuss, if only so we as laymen and lower clergy come to understand each other's positions better.

[Kolokotronis]

For a dung shoveler you've discerned the deeper, ontological reasoning of this Balkan Bandit rather well! :)

[Kolokotronis]

"Finally, K, you are willing to say something nice about me!"

Whadda ya mean? I always say, "That Agrarian, he's nice boy.., for Xenos!"