Explain the different views of primacy and supremacy please. No debate

[CDB1718]

I’m looking for some help explaining primacy, supremacy, authority, oversight and that kind of stuff between the pope and Eastern Catholics.

I know there are a lot of opinions and I don’t want a debate. I want to write the explanation from a historical perspective, not an apologetic one. It’s just an overview so I don’t want to read 10 textbooks about it to write 5 paragraphs, so that’s why I’m asking for help here in culling the important points because I know a lot of people here have read those 10 textbooks already.

Differing views in the Orthodox communion and in the Catholic communion and development through history are all welcome. I’m not asking for who is right, just asking for an explanation of what all the major players have to say.

 

[ConstantineTG]

124 viewers, no respondents.

I guess thats what you get when you said, “no debate”.

 

[CDB1718]

124 viewers, no respondents.

I guess thats what you get when you said, “no debate”.

If anyone wants to write me privately, that’s OK, too.

 

[mardukm]

In the Oriental Tradition and some quarters of the Latin Tradition, the word “primacy” is equivalent to “supremacy” and always taken in the context of collegiality (the High Petrine view). As you might know, the different Oriental Orthodox Churches in fact refer to Patriarchs formally as “supreme.”

In the Eastern Tradition, it seems “supremacy” has the connotation of totalitarianism, and therefore regarded differently than “primacy.” This doesn’t necessarily lead to the Low Petrine view, but is simply a different understanding of the terms.

In some quarters of the Latin Tradition (the Absolutist Petrine view), “primacy” is equivalent to “supremacy” but in a context outside of collegiality, wherein the Pope is seen as absolute monarch.

I’ll explain more later, as I have time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Primacy refers to one who is first. For example a Chairman on a board. He gets to speak first, control the meetings, etc.
You can see this in the modern day Catholic churches in the national churches, where one bishop is primate and therefore holds a special role, though he has no actual power over his brother bishops.

The term primacy has no implication of any real power, but at the same time it doesn’t discount it.

Supremacy, on the other hand, implies primacy within itself, but goes further and dictates that there must be unchecked power involved. In almost all cases supremacy is theoretical, for example kings in the middle ages were theoretically supreme, but in reality they had checks on their power.

 

[Hesychios]

The term “Primacy” exists at all levels of the church: among bishops, among priests around an altar, among deacons and even among altar servers. It’s integral to how the church works.

The deacon has primacy over the subdeacons, and the subdeacons over the altar servers. Primacy even operates within the ranks of each same position … it determines where every altar server stands around the altar for example ~ so this concept extends all the way up to the top and down to the base.

If you chair a committee, you have primacy. That does not mean or imply you make all the decisions yourself, that is the responsibility of the committee. If you are the most senior subdeacon, you have primacy among the subdeacons.

In Holy Orthodoxy primates are not ‘over’ their brother bishops in the sense that most Catholics will think. They are fundamentally all bishops and must work together. The Metropolitan may call a synod, and lead the discussions, but he can not act without the agreement of the rest and does not mandate on his own authority. He could even be removed by his synod, if the need arose and was serious enough a case to warrant it (actually any bishop could be removed, the bishop who is the local primate is not exempted). One of the conditions for removal would be bad management or corruption or negligence, a more serious reason would be false teaching.

This is not something new, there was no point in time where this policy was ‘put in place’ so to say, it is a universal practice that dates back into the early church.

My brother Nine_Two pointed out how there are vestiges of this earlier organizational form in the Latin Catholic church as well. Every country has a ‘primate’, but today that has become merely symbolic. In the same way the local synod has devolved into something different, because a lot of what the traditional synod would be doing has been reassigned to the responsibility of staffers in Rome.

Most Americans seem hardly aware that their Primate of the USA is the Archbishop of Baltimore. What does he do exactly? Well, today as a ‘primate’ he does almost nothing any more, the office has so atrophied that he is not even automatically considered the chair of the USCCB! It is the chair of the USCCB which actually acts more like a primate in the traditional sense (except that it has become a temporary office).

The Archbishop of Baltimore’s role as primate has dissolved over time. When American Catholics talk of primacy in these discussions they think only of the Pope as having primacy, many do not even understand the concept applies at every level of the church.

In the Apostolic canons some of the issues of church governance were addressed in terms of primacy, most notable canon 34/35 …

1. Do not ye receive any stranger, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, without commendatory letters; and when such are offered, let them be examined. And if they be preachers of piety, let them be received; but if not, supply their wants, but do not receive them to communion: for many things are done by surprise.
2. **The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit. **
3. A bishop must not venture to ordain out of his own bounds for cities or countries that are not subject to him. But if he be convicted of having done so without the consent of such as governed those cities or countries, let him be deprived, both the bishop himself and those whom he has ordained.

If we read these canons in full, one can see that they deal with almost any contingency, and address the role and responsibilities of bishops very well. [The full list can be seen Apostolic Canons”]here.]They even explain how bishops should be selected. No where do they mention any one bishop anywhere as having any sort of oversight or control over the other synods of the church.

 

[CDB1718]

Thank you those of you who’ve responded so far privately and here! I was asked to clarify my question.

After viewing Vico’s chart, people are asking me, “So how does the pope express primacy/supremacy over the Eastern Catholics then?” It’s really a different issue from what the relationship is between them, though it’s obviously built upon the earlier question.

Those words of primacy, supremacy and authority are controversial and need to be defined before the conversation can start. But I realized that I don’t know enough to be able to explain all the different dimensions/views that people bring to the table, and without knowing that background info, I don’t feel qualified to even start the conversation.

So I want to get an overview of the different perspectives. That will provide the background needed to understand the issue as it stands today. Once we’re all on the same page of how people are using the words and approaching the topic, we can have the discussion on primacy/supremacy in the early church, then in the developing church, then in the post-schism/post-reunion church, and then finally we’ll be able to understand where things stand today, and only after that can I contemplate where it can be in the future.

I should clarify the last point. Where we can be is simple and requires no thought, just trust in God and a child-like faith. We are called to unity. That doesn’t need discussion. The thoughts on how to achieve that are necessary for understanding. The will and actions on how to achieve that, and through whom we’ll achieve that, require no understanding at all. I’m not looking to fix it through understanding. It will be fixed through faith. A responsible part of addressing wrongs and responding in charity is aided by understanding, and that’s where I hope the dialog will be of benefit. But I can’t have it until I understand each progressive layer, so that’s why I’m here to learn.

 

[Vico]

I’m looking for some help explaining primacy, supremacy, authority, oversight and that kind of stuff between the pope and Eastern Catholics.

I know there are a lot of opinions and I don’t want a debate. I want to write the explanation from a historical perspective, not an apologetic one. It’s just an overview so I don’t want to read 10 textbooks about it to write 5 paragraphs, so that’s why I’m asking for help here in culling the important points because I know a lot of people here have read those 10 textbooks already.

Differing views in the Orthodox communion and in the Catholic communion and development through history are all welcome. I’m not asking for who is right, just asking for an explanation of what all the major players have to say.

Vatican I and Vatican II in Pastor Aeternus, Lumen Gentium, and Christus Dominus, expressed the dogmatic understanding of authority in the Church, the infallibility of the Church. Each bishop is a vicar and delegate of Christ, and there is a charitible communion of all bishops. Although the Bishop of Rome confirms the canons as part of his munus (office) it is not apart from and in opposition to the Church as a whole. Yet the Bishop of Rome is unique in his universal role. And the council of bishops in their universal role, are unique from each individual bishop. So we have three forms of dogmatic infallibility of the Church.

Bishop Gasser in his relatio at Vatican I, prior to the vote on the teaching authority of the Church, noted that Papal authority:

1. is not personal: not as the person, but as the role of Supreme Pontiff, not because of the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, but due to the assistance of the Holy Spirit when acting in that role as supreme judge in matters of faith and morals.
2. is not separate: not apart from, or opposed to, or set over against the entire Church, even though the promise of Christ of the aid of the Holy Spirit to the role of sucessor of Peter in matters of faith and morals is, in a sense, different than that of the indefectability and infallibility in truth promised to the entire Church.
3. is not absolute since absolute authority belongs to God alone and it is restricted by the subject: what must be accepted or rejected of faith or morals.

See The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pages 44-50. This is the book on the relatio of Vatican I.

In his relatio, Bishop Gasser addressed the understanding of how the Bishop of Rome may make a decision on faith and morals: “It is true that the consent of the present preaching of the whole Magisterium of the Church, united with its head, is the rule of faith even for pontifical definitions. But from that it can in no way be deduced that there is a strict and absolute necessity of seeking that consent from the rulers of the Churches or from the bishops. I say this because the consent is very frequently able to be deduced from the clear and manifest testimonies of Sacred Scripture, from the opinion of theologians and from other private means, all of which suffice for full informaton about the fact of the Church’s consent. Finally it must never be overlooked that there is present to the Pope the tradition of the Church of Rome, that is of the Church to which faithlessness has no access, and with which, because of its more powerful primacy, every Church must agree.”
The Gift of Infallibility, Gasser, O’Connor, pp. 54-55

Previously he gave Mt 28:20 for evidence of the infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church, and Mt 16:18 and Lk 22:32 as evidence of infallibility of the Pope (definitions of faith and morals).

We see the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church (in all the ritual Churches) expressed in Ad Tuendam Fidem of Blessed Pope John Paul II, in 1998: “TO PROTECT THE FAITH of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

The key difference between Orthodox and Catholic is that of jurisdiction. The Orthodox do not recognize the Catholic jurisdiction. This began early in the history of the Church as can be seen in the local eastern council of Constantinople in 381. The Latin Church was not present and did not ratify all decisions when it came to receive them at Chalcedon, although that Constantinople 381 was eventually ratified, which was by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate).

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_INDEX.HTM

1. Council of Nicaea (325)
   ratified by Pope St. Sylvester I (314-335 pontificate)
2. First Council of Constantinople (381)
   It was a local council of the east. Creed revision not received by the Latin Church.
3. Council of Ephesus (431)
   ratified by Pope Celestine I (421-432 pontificate)

447 dogma of filioque, Pope Leo I.

1. Council of Chalcedon (451) acceptance of Tome of Leo I, Creed of 381.
   ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461 pontificate)
2. Council of Constantinople II (553)
   reconfirmed the first four councils: Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate)

 

[CDB1718]

Thank you so far! Will someone speak for the Zoghby Initiative view? What other views are there?

 

[twf]

…My brother Nine_Two pointed out how there are vestiges of this earlier organizational form in the Latin Catholic church as well. Every country has a ‘primate’, but today that has become merely symbolic. In the same way the local synod has devolved into something different, because a lot of what the traditional synod would be doing has been reassigned to the responsibility of staffers in Rome.

Most Americans seem hardly aware that their Primate of the USA is the Archbishop of Baltimore. What does he do exactly? Well, today as a ‘primate’ he does almost nothing any more, the office has so atrophied that he is not even automatically considered the chair of the USCCB! It is the chair of the USCCB which actually acts more like a primate in the traditional sense (except that it has become a temporary office).

The Archbishop of Baltimore’s role as primate has dissolved over time. When American Catholics talk of primacy in these discussions they think only of the Pope as having primacy, many do not even understand the concept applies at every level of the church…

Actually I don’t think the Archbishop of Baltimore ever held the title “Primate of America” or “Primate of the United States.” As far as I know, the American Church never had an official primate - (someone correct me if I’m wrong). Baltimore was often accorded a place of honor as the oldest particular church (diocese) in the United States…and her bishop may have acted as a primate of sorts in the early days…but I don’t believe he ever held the office.
Here in Canada, on the other hand, the Archbishop of Quebec is indeed the Primate of Canada. The first Bishop of Quebec, Bl. Francois de Laval, reigned over a diocese that extended from Quebec to New Orleans… at the time he was the only Catholic bishop north of Mexico. In his capacity as Primate, the Archbishop of Quebec was invited to celebrate the centential mass of the Archdiocese of Vancouver a couple years back. Yes the national primacies within the Latin Church are primacies of honor - and I agree with you, as a Latin Catholic, that perhaps it would be more in line with tradition for the national Primates to resume their traditional authority as ‘permanent presidents’ of the national espicopal conferences. I wouldn’t agree that the concept of synod has ceased to exist - the episcopal conferences do determine a considerable amount at the national level…from country to country, within the Latin Church, holy days of obligation, local feasts and devotions, required days of penance, Scripture translations, postures during prayer (I.e. when to kneel during the mass), etc will vary considerably. Not all decisions are reserved to ‘staffers’ at the Vatican.
Also, the provincial metropolitans have preserved a bit more of their traditional primacy than the national Primates have. Latin metropolitans still have the following rights (as far as I can remember):

convene provincial synods

monitor the affairs of their provinces and report bishops who are neglecting their duties to the Apostolic see

celebrate mass in any parish church in any diocese within the province

administer a vacant see within their province

hear appeals (through their established tribunals) to the judgments of the tribunals of their brother bishops throughout the province

 

[Hesychios]

Actually I don’t think the Archbishop of Baltimore ever held the title “Primate of America” or “Primate of the United States.” As far as I know, the American Church never had an official primate

That could be the case, I read that the title is ‘honorary’, which is actually more in keeping with the new ecclesiology of the church.

National synods were the bane of the Papacy for many years, and were finally shut down when Gallicanism was condemned as a heresy at Vatican I. Yet they had a long evolving run in Roman Catholicism all the way from the early church to the late 19th century. Then of course, nothing.

I suppose that Canada has a real primate (according to RC rules) due to the fact it had a much earlier foundation as a French colony than the USA church has. It may have actually received that recognition from the French church instead of from Rome (something to look into).

The national bishops conferences seem to have shown up about the time of Pope Benedict XV, which would be about 40 years or more hiatus (but I am working from memory). Anyway, they reflect the earlier ecclesiology, but in fact are a new thing since the ancient synods in Europe were suppressed.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

That could be the case, I read that the title is ‘honorary’, which is actually more in keeping with the new ecclesiology of the church.

I’m not sure what you mean. Is it not your own pov that head bishops only have “honorary” titles anyway? If that is the case, why would you call it a “new ecclesiology?”

National synods were the bane of the Papacy for many years, and were finally shut down when Gallicanism was condemned as a heresy at Vatican I.

Well, Gallicanism was condemned as a heresy long before Vatican 1. But I agree with your observation that National synods were the bane of the papacy. However, what I would not agree with is your premise (if my assumption about your premise is correct). National synods were the bane of the papacy not because there was competition between the authority of the papacy and the authority of the bishops, but because there was competition between the authority of the papacy and the authority of the secular power which used the national synods as personal agencies of the state. If you read the section on the primacy of Pastor Aeternus, it is quite obvious. One stunning excerpt is the statement that the supreme authority is not intended to impede the authority of the local bishop, but rather to strengthen and defend it (with the secular power immediately in mind). Another relevant excerpt is the statement that the Pope can exercise his authority freely (i,e, uncoerced, not unrestricted). Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors, wholly ignorant of Vatican 1 behind the scenes, think that this statement primarily refers to the relationship between the Pope and bishops. Rather, knowledge of the background of V1 would reveal that the statement instead primarily refers to the relationship between the Pope and the secular power, as the secular power often tried to control the papacy, or use their national synods in opposition to the papacy.

I suppose that Canada has a real primate (according to RC rules) due to the fact it had a much earlier foundation as a French colony than the USA church has. It may have actually received that recognition from the French church instead of from Rome (something to look into).

Highly doubtful theory. The American Catholic Church has had a streak of independence from the very beginning, evident even to this day.

I think your pov perhaps confuses the role of the bishop of Rome as Pope and the role of the bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the Latins (formerly, “the West”). The degree of control the bishop of Rome has over the National Synods of the Latins is due to his role as Patriarch of the Latins, not his role as the Pope. The confusion causes detractors of the papacy to extrapolate his relationship to bishops within the Latin Patriarchate to his relationship to bishops in other Patriarchates. I’m still a relatively young Catholic, so I am not so jaded about the ideal of the papacy, and thus don’t readily give heed to the fearmongering that goes on when the Pope does something to one of the Latin bishops under his omophor.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

I’m not sure what you mean. Is it not your own pov that head bishops only have “honorary” titles anyway?

I don’t know where you even get this notion, but if you find anything I have ever posted that says that idea, post it.

Your comment reflects much more on the workings of your own mind and your prejudices about me than anything else.

 

[Deacon_Yuhanna]

The way I see it, this question might be one which benefits from a certain lack of definition. I say this not just because Maronites have tended to avoid unnecessary definitions (whereas sometimes it seems Latins are fond of defining, even when restraint might be more prudent) but also because terms such as “primacy” and “supremacy” are relative. The difficulty with these relative terms is that once one starts to try and pin them down, grey areas arise, as they must - because the concepts are not absolute. A person or institution who is supreme in one field may not be so in another field.

Newman said that it was a strength of the Catholic church that she had not pinned herself down on questions such as the authority of the Bible, as Protestants had; and so he was not wildly excited when Vatican I started defining things. I must admit I feel much the same way about attempts to define authority within the Church (e.g. what exactly is “that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals”?). As I said, Maronites have never liked this, except under Latin influence. There are many examples of this. So my conclusion: this is a question I really wouldn’t willingly buy into.