Is a primacy strictly necessary in the Orthodox Church?

[catholic1seeks]

I once thought I knew the answer to this, but with recent news regarding Russia, it got me thinking.

There might be division in the Orthodox world over who has primacy (e.g., which bishop is the first among equals), and how it should be determined.

But since the primacy is canonically/ecclesiastically determined, and not inherently connected to a divine foundation in Peter (as in the Catholic view), then is the primacy even necessary according to Orthodox?

In other words, is the primacy in Orthodoxy (“ecumenical patriarch”) only a practical advantage, but not necessary — as opposed to the necessity of having a priesthood, or having a local bishop, for example?

 

[HeDa]

I am pretty sure the Orthodox won’t say out loud that they want someone to put the foot down and have the final say but my guess is that is what most secretly want.

 

[Crusader30]

It is necessary in the true Church.

 

[Start]

I was wondering that too.

 

[Xpi22]

The Orthodox Churches are associated within political alignments, national churches. They recognize more or less primaries of honor which some accord the Bishop of Rome. They are autonomous under their own Patriarchs. They do not recognize a primacy of Jurisdiction outside their own Patriarchies.

 

[dochawk]

It’s certainly necessary to the extent that a committee needs a single chairman.

In practice, for the last millennium there hasn’t been a lot more to it than that save fro the role in recognizing new Orthodox churches.

The EP never took on the role as arbiter that Rome held in the first millennium.

hawk

 

[ChristMyLife]

in the church at large (the communion

But it’s not any sort of real authoritative or hierarchical primacy.

The “primacy” of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Orthodoxy is essentially a figurehead. The buck stops with the Patriarch of each autocephalous Church in Orthodox thought.

 

[CRM_Brother]

I don’t know about necessary in and of itself, but acccording to the Orthodox approved canons of the Council of Chalcedon, they must abide by the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

A little history:
After the council of Chalcedon had ruled on the matter of the hypostatic union, the Papal delegate left, having been told that the Council was closed. After he left, as he was in transit back to Italy, the Orthodox bishops reconvened the Council and voted to give the Patriarch of Constantinople equal dignity and honors to the Pope with regards to the Eastern Churches, with the Patriarch only submitting himself in the personal presence of the Pope or through a direct Papal veto. Because the Papal delegate was not given the ability to attend the Western Church rejects this last session and its declarations (canons) invalid but it is still in force for the non-Coptic Eastern Churches (these formed from those who had been excommunicated at the Council).

As such, in confirmity with their adherence to the Council which the Orthodox have always pointed to in defense of their authority, they must abide by the final session’s ruling. If not, then it is the Russian Orthodox Church which is in schism, not the Greek, despite whar the Russians say.