"And [the synod�s] second constitutive element is the existence among these bishops of a clearly defined primacy of the first bishop. This primacy is defined in the famous Apostolic Canon 34.� (Alexander Schmemann, The Idea of Primacy In Orthodox Ecclesiology; The Primacy of Peter, p.161).
�The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent... but neither let him (who is first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity...� Apostolic Canon 34 (4th Century)
2. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Pope�s authority directly contradicts this understanding of primacy:
"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered (CCC #882).
...this also contradicts the understanding of the early Church regarding the primacy of the Bishops of Rome (not to mention their infallibillity) as expressed by Blessed Augustine who affirmed the superiority of an Ecumenical Council to the judgment of Rome:
�...as if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: �Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed�� (Letter 43:19).
3. Primacy is meant to be exercised in the Church, not over it. As St. Augustine once put it, "Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them �I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee.�"
"The basis of priority is neither power, nor honor, but only the authority that flows from love and is made manifest by love. The church-in-priority may make mistakes in the very act of coming to the rescue of churches in need and especially of churches in error; that is why the witness of the other churches is needed. Its grand mistake is wanting to impose a sovereign will or put itself above other churches. This is the first step that leads in the end to revoking priority and resisting the will of God, for it is a renouncing of the love that spreads throughout the Church. By putting itself above all the number of local churches, which embosom its own priority, it takes a road that may lead it outside the bounds of that number, to a place where there is no priority, only a realm of �ecclesiological vacuum.� Priority implies the existence of a number of local churches, and every church among them is the church of God just as much as is the church-in-priority. When a local church invokes the church-in-priority, it is not invoking judgment from a tribunal against which there is no appeal, but coming to the church-in-priority so as to find itself, by hearing the voice of the Church which dwells there. What possible explanation can we give for the priority of one church among the whole number of local churches? You may explain it, to be sure, by her own endeavors to manifest in her own life the Church of God in Christ, on the basis of purely historical facts -her being in some special town, or being founded by Apostles, or having many adherents- but all these causes are not sufficient in themselves, since other local churches may perfectly well posses whatever advantages the church-in-priority possesses. It must be admitted in the end that priority is a gift of God, and so an election by God. We cannot fully understand it, but the whole mass of local churches accept it in freedom and love, and follow the church-in-priority. (Nicholas Afanassieff, The Church Which Presides In Love; The Primacy of Peter, p.114, 115)."
4. All Bishops were seen as holding the place of Peter at the head of their churches. Every bishop sits on the "Throne of Peter."
"In the Eastern view, which follows that of Origen, all bishops who have the faith of Peter are successors of Peter together with the other Apostles. All inherit the same faith and no one bishop could be considered the sole guardian of the Christian tradition. St. Cyprian, after quoting from the Gospels passages where Christ empowers Peter and the other Apostles, states in the well-known passage: �That He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the Apostles were also the same as was Peter endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power, but the beginning proceeds from unity.�" (Archbp. Tiran Nersoyan, Problems and Exercise of Primacy; Armenian Church Historical Studies, p. 205).
5. The church of Rome "because of her superior origin" based on Sts. Peter and Paul (and other reasons) had a primacy (or priority) of witness not of "power"
"But then why was the church of Rome vested with primacy among other churches, a primacy "analogous" to the one that Peter had among the Apostles? The Byzantines had a clear answer to this question: this Roman primacy came not from Peter, whose presence had been more effective and better attested in Jerusalem or in Antioch than in Rome, but from the fact that Rome was the capital of the Empire. Here all Byzantine authors are in agreement: the 28th Canon of Chalcedon is for them an axiom." (John Meyendorff, St. Peter in Byzantine Theology; The Primacy of Peter, p. 82).
6. Differing interpretations of the Petrine passages from the earliest times of the Church demonstrate that there was not one interpretation authoritatively handed on from the Apostles. It is clear that the Roman Catholic interpretation was not the sole, nor universal understanding of that text. This interpretation was primarily put forward by Popes themselves who were attempting to advance their own prerogatives and power.
7. "By analogy the Pope of Rome was viewed as in the place of St. Peter among the Apostles. But this analogy should be limited by the councils and not pushed too far to insinuate a dominance. (ibid., p. 89)."
8. St. Peter is first among the twelve not over them.
"But we must make clear, yet again, that Peter is first of the Twelve, first among the Twelve. The text of Acts confirms this: Peter never acts or speaks alone, but in company with the Twelve, or sometimes John. Luke, presumed author of the Book of Acts, makes this very clear, perhaps by design, in all the texts concerning Peter in the first five chapters." (Nicholas Koulomzine, Peter�s Place in the Primitive Church; The Primacy of Peter, p. 14).
"Behold, how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own power or authority." (St. John the Golden-Mouthed (Chrysostom).
"Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them �I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee.�" (St. Augustine)
9. Just as St. Peter had to answer to the others at Jerusalem in Acts 11:1-18, so must the bishop of Rome. This contradicts the Roman doctrine that �there is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff� (Code of Canons of the Eastern [Catholic] Churches #45.3 & Roman Code of Canon Law #333.3). This is already contradicted by the above statement of Blessed Augustine.
10. In the case of the Quatrodecimans the Eastern understanding of authority is confirmed. The Pope excommunicates a Church, the majority of bishops disagree with the Pope and do not accept his decision. So, he conforms his decision to be in harmony with the judgment of all.
"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant sharply rebuking Victor. ...[Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom..." (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History 5:23:1-24:11).
11. Peter left successors in the bishoprics of Jerusalem and Antioch as well as Rome. These also should have retained the "power of the keys" being they also are successors of St. Peter. This manifests the fact that Rome gained primacy primarily because it was the Empire�s capital.
12. If the absolute primacy of the see of Rome was a teaching professed by the apostles, why didn�t anyone among the Oriental Orthodox stand up and confess this when these Churches rejected the definition of Pope Leo I at the Council of Chalcedon. If this was part of the apostolic preaching, surely someone would have reminded their brethren that "we must obey the Pope of Rome in all maters." The same holds for the Eastern Orthodox who broke with Rome in A.D. 1054.
13. To Eastern Christians, the question of �primacy� is more a question of canonical procedure and Church administration than a matter of faith. Those in the Roman Church who raise it to that level have caused unnecessary division. In reality, on matters of dogmatic faith which were addressed by the early Ecumenical Councils, all the ancient Churches are agreed. Pope Paul VI affirmed this when he commented that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are in �nearly total communion� and in his referrence to latter Western councils not as �ecumenical� but rather as the �general synods of the West.�
14. Even up to the time of the Great Western Schism, many ecclesiastics in the west believed the council to be superior to the Pope of Rome. This is another proof that absolute Papal Primacy is not of apostolic origin and was not even clearly defined by the West until very late in their ecclesiastical history. Hence Roman Catholic Bishops in the Council of Basel (A.D. 1439) decreed:
1. A general council is above a Pope
2. The Pope cannot dissolve or interrupt a council, nor can he transfer it to another place.
3. Anyone who denies these truths is a heretic.
15. Even in the Vatican I Council's recognition of papal authority, there is an ironic implicit recognition of the superiority of the Ecumencial Council. I.e., it took a council declare the Pope supreme.
"The ancient Churches referred to the authority of Ecumenical Councils all beliefs which were in question, in order that any difficulty raised in connection with a dogma might be solved. That rule has never ceased to be rigorously observed from the early centuries until our present time.
"The Roman Church alone deemed it necessary, in the second half of the nineteenth century, to take away that prerogative from the Councils and to fix it on the person of the Pope. But, in order to justify such a usurpation of authority, she could not do less than refer to that self-same authority which she had despoiled, thus compelling it to commit a moral suicide." (Archbp. Malachias Ormanian, The Church of Armenia, p. 99).
16. There should be a distinction between dogma and doctrine. In the West it seems there is very little difference or distinction made between dogmas and doctrines. In other words they both carry very similar -if not identical- authority or weight. Whereas in the East, at least in the writings of the Armenian scholar, Malachias Ormanian, there is a clear difference. �Dogma� is seen as an absolutely binding truth, revealed by God, held by the universal Church, which the faithful must adhere to in order to be members of that Church. �Doctrine� is seen as a particular Church�s teaching which attempts the explanation of these dogmas. To quote the Armenian Archbishop Ormanian, "The dogma is the teaching of the Church; the doctrine is but the statement of the school. Dogmas belong to religion; doctrines to theology" (The Church of Armenia, p.99). Western Christians raise all doctrines to the level of dogma which renders reunion with them impossible unless the East �submits� to their teachings.
17. In Qui Quorundum (1324) �Pope John XXII condemned the �doctrine� of unchangeable papal decrees as the �work of satan.��
�When the spiritual Franciscans, in turn, declared John XXII a heretic - appealing to the principle that what had once been defined by the popes through the �key of knowledge� i.e. magisterially) was a truth of faith and could no longer be called into question by a successor -the pope condemned that principled as �false� (Papal Primacy p.118, Klaus Schatz, S.J.).
Disclaimer from the author:
The article "Principals of Primacy in Eastern Orthodoxy," is not necessarily an expression of my views on Roman Primacy. Rather, it is my attempt to present the best historic arguments and concerns of our Eastern Orthodox mother Churches. I believe it is only by understanding their authentic positions will we be able to come up with an expression of Roman Primacy that is acceptable to all sides and end this sinful, needless and ongoing schism between the ancient Churches. The Pope of Rome has invited Eastern Catholics to weigh in on this issue and try to assist in the ecumenical process of finding an acceptable form of Roman Primacy. This document is intended to be only a small thought/dialogue-provoking first step in that direction.
