8,921
edits
Changes
reversed editorializing, pejorative, unsubstantiated, unencyclopedic edits (OW - NPOV); left entries for Daley and DeVille sources;
==An Orthodox Vision of Primacy==
In what ways does the Orthodox understanding of primacy differ from the Roman Catholic view? The most comprehensive answer to that question is provided in a new book by Adam DeVille entitled ''Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity.'' Orthodox perspective is rooted in principles drawn from the early canonical tradition, but also from later reflection, especially in the post-war period. It is worth mentioning that even within Orthodoxy the question does not admit of one answer: there are a variety of understandings of primacy and unity. Most such understandings deal deals first and foremost, because of historical considerations, with the legitimate primacy exercised by Rome before the schism.
===The Theological Necessity of Primacy===
Orthodoxy has never accepted Rome's self-supported claims of universal jurisdiction, but has often, especially in the modern (post-19th century) period always rebuffed them. A closer examination, however, reveals the many subtleties of 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}}.
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}}
It is a fact, however, that there has never been a time when the Church did not recognize a certain "order" among first the apostles, then the bishops, and that, in this order, one apostle, St. Peter, and later, one bishop, heading a particular church, occupied the place of a "primate."{{ref|15}}
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? Again there are a number of answers to this, all surveyed in DeVille's book.
===Hierarchy and Concilliarity===
===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 most clearly articulated in the landmark an article of the by Roman Catholic historian [[w:Brian E. Daley|Brian Daley]]: "Position and Patronage in the Early Church: the The Original Meaning of 'Primacy of Honor'," ''Journal of Theological Studies'' 44 (1993): 529-553. Daley demolishes the usual nonsense about 'primacy of honor' meaning the primate is a toothless titular smiling beningly and impotently over the Church. 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}}
::"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 some the Orthodox, Roman primacy has been understood as a pragmatic, rather than theological, issue, growing out of a principle of accommodation.{{ref|29}} 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}}
{{ref|31}}they nevertheless contain principles applicable to universal primacy as well. Zonaras observes:
==What if Roman Primacy were Reinstated?==
There are a variety of approaches to what a resuscitated Roman primacy would look like, and that variety is nowhere so clearly and helpfully articulated as in DeVille's book, ''Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy.'' Erickson writes that it might be possible for the Orthodox to accept the view of Papal primacy which developed in the West in the second millennium as legitimate within its historical context.{{ref|42}} He says that "Agreement in principle on some aspects of primacy may be on the horizon."{{ref|43}} He describes Ut Unum Sint as a welcome sign which has reopened discussion of primacy,{{ref|44}} and calls for a "deeper exploration of the meaning of primacy for the ongoing life of the Church…"{{ref|45}}
Zizioulas makes that point that "A universal primus exercising his primacy in such a way is not only useful to the Church but an ecclesiological necessity in a unified Church."{{ref|46}}
