8
edits
Changes
→An Orthodox Vision of Primacy
==An Orthodox Vision of Primacy==
In what ways does the Orthodox understanding of primacy differ from the Roman Catholic view? The Orthodox perspective is not univocal and admits of many different ideas and practices. Orthodoxy's view, in a word, is very diverse. The best description and analysis of that diversity, as Orthodox theologians Michael Plekon and Vigen Guroian (inter alia) have recognized, is provided in a recent survey by Adam DeVille: ''Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy''. In sum, Orthodoxy's ideas of primacy are rooted in principles drawn from the early canonical tradition. It is worth mentioning that even within Orthodoxy the question deals first and foremost, because of historical considerationsbut also, as Nicholas Lossky (among others) has demonstrated, with rooted in the legitimate primacy exercised by Rome before Romantic-nationalist ideas of the schismnineteenth century.
===The Theological Necessity of Primacy===
Orthodoxy has never accepted Rome's self-supported claims of universal jurisdiction, but , equally, has always rebuffed themnever had a consistent position of its own. A closer examinationThere are, howeverin fact, reveals the many subtleties of one must attend do in dealing with the issue. As Thomas FitzGerald wrote, "Orthodox theologians have not rejected the concept of primacy, but only its development by the Church of Rome."{{ref|11}}. Beyond that rejection, however, they have rarely if ever been capable of coming up with a coherent theory of primacy on their own.
An understanding of corporate personality is important for any study of primacy. Zizioulas writes: "The idea of the incorporation of the 'many' into the 'one,' or of the 'one' as a representative of the 'many' goes back to a time earlier than Paul."{{ref|12}} More directly, he says, "Bishops are not to be understood as individuals, but as heads of communities."{{ref|13}} This would necessitate a single representative showing forth the unity of the episcopate. There is another important point here: that primacy belongs to a see, not to an individual. As Zizioulas states: "In an ecclesiology of communion, we have not a communion of individuals, but of churches."{{ref|14}}
Zizioulas says that the question of Roman primacy must be approached theologically rather than historically; if primacy was only contingent on historical developments, then it could not be viewed as a necessity for the Church.{{ref|16}} His question is, does Roman Primacy belong to the esse of the Church or is it only for her bene esse?
===Hierarchy and Concilliarity===
Fr. Schmemann wrote: "hierarchy is the very form of concilliarity."{{ref|17}} He sees this as mirroring the divine life of the Trinity. Hierarchy and concilliarity should not be opposed, but go together: "the hierarchical principle belongs to the very essence of the council…"{{ref|18}}, and Orthodox church government must be rooted in a "concilliar ontology."{{ref|19}} Zizioulas maintains that "The synodal system is a 'sine qua non conditio' for the catholicity of the Church."{{ref|20}}
===Primacy of honor not without authority===
Metropolitan John Zizioulas says that the phrase "primacy of honor" often used by Orthodox may be misleading, because the exercise of primacy necessarily involves actual duties and responsibilities.{{ref|26}} This position has been clearly articulated in an article by Roman Catholic historian [[w:Brian E. Daley|Brian Daley]]: "Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning of 'Primacy of Honor'," ''Journal of Theological Studies'' 44 (1993): 529-553. Daley makes it clear that Orthodox who blithely (and often mindlessly) repeat slogans such as "primacy of honor" really have no idea what they are talking about. "Honor" in the ancient world always entailed practical authority and actual demands upon the faithful. Such primacy was never merely confined to impotent advocacy. The primacy exercised by the Patriarch of Constantinople, for example, has included such things as the right to convoke councils in cooperation with the other Patriarchs, and an emergency right of intervention when help is requested by another Patriarchate:{{ref|27}} Or such, at any rate, is often the modern interpretation of the primacy of Constantinople, especially by those who tendentiously favor such a position over and against, e.g., the Russian view.
::"In response to the present Roman Catholic understanding of the Petrine Office, Orthodox theologians have not rejected the concept of primacy but only its development by the Church of Rome. Among the Orthodox, there has been an attempt to recognize the various expressions of primatial leadership in the life of the Church, and to place primacy within the framework of concilliarity."{{ref|28}}
Professor Erickson points out that for the Orthodox, Roman primacy has been understood as a pragmatic, rather than theological, issue, growing out of a principle of accommodation.{{ref|29}} But Met. Zizioulas sharply qualifies this view, asserting, on no less than three occasions between 1995 and 2009, that "the primacy of the bishop of Rome has to be theologically justified or else rejected altogether." Honor and primacy must be linked to ministry and service, and the Pope must function as head of his see, as one who is among, rather than over, the other bishops. Again, primacy involves more than simply "honor," but is linked to a universal pastoral concern, a "presidency in love." This means leadership, not juridical authority.{{ref|30}}
::"Just as bodies, if the head does not maintain its activity in good health, function faultily or are completely useless, so also the body of the Church, if its preeminent member, who occupies the position of head, is not maintained in his proper honor, functions in a disorderly and faulty manner."{{ref|32}}
Zonaras also mentions the prime importance of harmony among all, bound together by the bond of love.{{ref|33}}
From the time of the first Ecumenical Council on, Byzantine canon law had always assigned primacy of honor was given to Rome, for . For example Nicea canon 6.{{ref|34}} seems to suggest that: Even when the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople, the "new Rome," the priority of the old Rome was safeguarded. Constantinople 3 states: "As for the Bishop of Constantinople, let him have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city is the new Rome."{{ref|35}} Even when Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor Alexis I, tried to interpret "after" in a purely chronological sense, she was corrected by both Zonaras and Balsamon, who maintained that "after" certainly shows hierarchical inferiority.{{ref|36}}
Meyendorff summarizes the "privileges" spoken of in Constantinople canon 3:
::The fathers in fact have correctly attributed the prerogatives to the see of the most ancient Rome because it was the imperial city. And thus moved by the same reasoning, [we] have accorded equal prerogatives to the very holy see of New Rome, justly considering that the city is honored by the imperial power and the senate and enjoying the prerogatives equal to those of old Rome, the most ancient imperial city, ought to be elevated as Old Rome in the affairs of the Church, being in the second place after it.{{ref|38}}
This canon, however, cannot be interpreted in isolation, but must be seen in light of the most recent scholarship--which many Orthodox, plainly preferring anti-intellectual ignorance to the truth, reject--from such as Susan Wessell in her recent and very important book ''Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome'', where she significantly alters our understanding of canon 28 and Pope Leo I in this crucial council.
===The Principle of Accommodation===