7,271
edits
Changes
Primacy never "purely honorific"
: All that aside, though, the article's got a long way to go! —[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 16:29, June 10, 2006 (CDT)
:Sure. Just for the record, I don't think anyone would (or should) say primacy is "purely honorific." That would be a false interpretation of the canons arrived at by a false polemic against the RC church. A primacy of honor implies some rights, privileges, and powers. It seems to me that the dispute, particularly between Moscow and Constantinople, is over the character and specific rights/privileges of this primacy. Maybe there is even a dispute over Constantinople's exercise of primacy, since the canons (alongside a respect for tradition, which is why Rome was kept in first place after the capitol was moved) also work according to a principle of accomodation. I.e. the reason Rome held primacy in the first place was not simply because of the Holy martyrs there or because of some doctrine of Petrine succession, but because it was the seat of the empire. Similarly, Constantinople surpassed all the other ancient sees (excepting Rome) in honor when it became the capitol. An argument may be made today that Constantinople can no longer fulfill this primacy becuase of the restrictions placed on it by the government of Turkey, and that it would be better located elsewhere. (On the other hand, respect for the ancient prerogatives of the see and a concern for the stability of the churches might dictate that it not be moved, or if it be moved, it remains "with Constantinople" so to speak, e.g. in Geneva.) I'm not making that argument - just trying to delineate where I think the fault lines might actually be. That's all IMHO, of course. {{User:FrJohn/sig}}