It would be absolute fullness of supreme authority. The Pope claims not absolute authority, he claims supreme authority. Supreme means he the 1st hierarch of the whole Church. The “absolute” comes in with regard to the “fullness”, that is no bishops may share this position of 1st hierarch with him, it is his alone, he “fills it full”.
I would like to be in communion with Rome, but I do not agree with this claim. So I don’t see it as ethical to be in communion with this “dogma”. If all the Churches through Church history also taught the same thing I would have to concede and agree. But I don’t think there has ever been a point in history where all the Churches believed this. Of course the Eastern Catholic Churches must agree, that’s part of the deal.
From Jesus to Peter to the Pope?
I agree that Jesus gave to Peter the Keys, yes. Peter was 1st over the whole Church. But after Peter died the last living apostle was John. Jesus spoke to the whole Church thru a vision given to John, so John was 1st over the whole Church at that point. Now if the primacy was passed down to the See of St Peter, that would make Antioch the 1st, as it was the See of St Peter. Rome was the See of St Paul! Now Rome did get the primacy, but it got it because the city of Rome was the largest most dominant city and it was at the time of the preaching of the apostles as well as the time of the 1st Ecumenical Council the capital city. Peter got the Keys directly from Christ, but Rome got it indirectly from men. So if the Patriarchs were “man made”, as some have disrespectfully said, so to was the Pope. - Please, I beg of you to prove me wrong!
Dear John,
Excellent points!
Orthodoxy has, prior to the schism between East and West, always recognized the Primacy of Rome and here are some reasons why.
Both Sts Peter and Paul established the Church at Rome (as in MANY other places, as you correctly note), but were martyred there and their relics were venerated at Rome. For this reason alone, the Orthodox have historically (as Fr. Meyendorff - +memory eternal! - has asserted) honoured Rome as the Church of the Chiefs of the Apostles. In the Orthodox service in their honour, there is the prayer of invocation to them “Come from Rome and enlighten us!” Or words to that effect, I don’t pray in English so my translation could be off.
Also, Rome’s position as capital of the empire did have a lot to do with the Bishop of Rome’s primacy status as well. This was just natural, the Church adopted many things from the political culture and administration of Rome, e.g. “Episcopus” is actually the Roman term for “mayor” and so with “Metropolitan” etc. Our Cathedrals were adopted from the Roman magisterial courts of justice, the long chain that Orthodox priests in particular wear is taken from the double-looped chain of Roman judges and the like.
The idea of Successors to Apostles was established early in the Church’s history. St Mark of Alexandria was the founder of the Church there and his successors were directly from him and not related to any other Apostle/Disciple alive when Mark was not. (All the popes of Alexandria from St Mark until the present have been canonized as saints, interestingly - Rome herself could never boast that! ).
St Clement of Rome, then, was seen as the successor to St Peter and also to St Paul in Rome. When he spoke, such as through his Clementine Epistle, the universal Church at the time listened and paid attention. This was because he spoke in the name of the Chiefs of the Apostles and no one questioned that. Orthodoxy venerates more saintly Roman popes than even the Roman Catholic Church and there is no doubt in the liturgical texts who it is that it honours i.e. successors to the Chiefs of the Apostle who were martyred at Rome.
Orthodoxy began to call Constantinople the “New Rome” not only because it was in secular terms, but also because of its significance as an up and coming Christian, Apostolic Centre. In fact. Pope St Gregory asserted that under the title of “Roman See” we might include more than just the See of Old Rome.
The fact remains that in the ensuing centuries of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Byzantine world outdid the West in honouring the Pope of Elder Rome. They did this because they needed the Pope as an arbiter in their ongoing struggles with the Emperor.
We may argue about how far the Byzantine Orthodox world understood the papal prerogatives and what they entailed. We may argue that the West thought the East understood the papacy in the same way it did (but the East really didn’t).
The fact remains that the Orthodox Church has seen Rome as the ultimate See of Christianity. And the schism even underlines this since Constantinople is the “New Rome” and with Moscow as the “Third Rome.” It is always in relation to “Rome” itself and the tradition of St Peter and St Paul, the Chief of the Apostles.
Fr. Prof. Meyendorff once quoted an Orthodox teacher as saying, “Do not argue with the Latins about the Petrine primacy. The primacy is good for the Church. Only ask if the Petrine minister (i.e. pope of Rome) confesses the faith of Peter (i.e. Creed without the Filioque) and, if he does, then let him enjoy the primacy of Peter.”
Alex
