The difference between Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy in Eastern Catholicism?

[Mannyfit75]

I know I been studying the Papacy for sometime, but I could never grasp the difference between Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy.

Any good Catholic Book on this subject would be recommended as well. If you know any, let me know.

Thanks be to God.

 

[East_and_West]

Well, those are both loaded terms. We Catholics profess papal primacy that actually has some teeth behind it with real authority and real meaning. The Eastern Orthodox refer to this as papal supremecy. They also claim to believe in primacy, but there primacy just about amounts to nothing. For them, primacy only means a sense of honor.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well, those are both loaded terms. We Catholics profess papal primacy that actually has some teeth behind it with real authority and real meaning. The Eastern Orthodox refer to this as papal supremecy. They also claim to believe in primacy, but there primacy just about amounts to nothing. For them, primacy only means a sense of honor.

Can you be more specific? I like details.

 

[East_and_West]

Can you be more specific? I like details.

Well the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope has immediate and universal jurisdiction. The Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, teaches that the Pope can preside at a council. That is a huge difference.

 

[mardukm]

From my understanding, papal supremacy means that the bishop of Rome is the highest court of appeal on all issues in the Church. This is nothing more nor less than the prerogative granted to the bishop of Rome by the Council of Sardica, with the agreement of the most holy Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria. All the orthodox bishops were in agreement regarding the Pope of Rome’s prerogative. Unfortunately at the time, most of the other Eastern bishops were Arian heretics and left that Council. So the ecumenical intention of the Council was stymied by most of the heretical Eastern bishops’ rebellion (it was indeed originally intended to be an ecumenical council).

But the Gates of Hades could not prevail against God’s own order for His Church, and the God-given prerogative of the bishop of Rome was reaffirmed in decree, action or both by the third through seventh Ecumenical Councils.

Papal primacy, on the other hand, is defined in the context of the college of bishops. Papal primacy means that the Pope of Rome is the head bishop of the bishops of the nations of the world, as granted by the Apostolic Canon 34. In this context, the bishop of Rome has some canonical limits to the exercise of his prerogatives, as the office of the head bishop is intended to preserve the unity of the Church. This primatial office inherently includes the responsibility of supporting and maintaining the episcopal prerogatives of his brother bishops - as indeed Vatican I itself defined.

That is what I have learned in my studies during my swim across the Tiber.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[yeshua]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to its appropriate forum, considering it is being led as a comparison between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

That is, unless you want Eastern Catholics to discuss their interpretations of what is the difference between Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy, and how such a difference affects our practices, heritages, and role within the universal church.
*
(Posted shortly after Brother Marduk, thanks for steering the focus to where it needs to be!)*

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to its appropriate forum, considering it is being led as a comparison between Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

That is, unless you want Eastern Catholics to discuss their interpretations of what is the difference between Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy, and how such a difference affects our practices, heritages, and role within the universal church.
*
(Posted shortly after Brother Marduk, thanks for steering the focus to where it needs to be!)*

Peace and God Bless.

I meant to post it in Apologetic Thread but I mistakenly add here.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Apologetics would be to discuss the Roman Catholic understanding.

Non-Catholic Religions would be to discuss the difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox understandings.

Eastern Catholicism would be to discuss the Eastern Catholic understanding or effects on Eastern Catholics.

Which is your intent?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Apologetics would be to discuss the Roman Catholic understanding.

Non-Catholic Religions would be to discuss the difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox understandings.

Eastern Catholicism would be to discuss the Eastern Catholic understanding or effects on Eastern Catholics.

Which is your intent?

I like to see the prespective of the Eastern Catholics view on the issue of Papal Papacy and Papal Supremacy. I didn’t want to engage this into any apologetic debate from those who disagree with the Magisterium of the Church. Perhaps, you could add in the title, What is the difference between Papal Primacy and Papal Supremacy according to Eastern Catholicism?

 

[Aramis]

The Canon Law issue is that the pope has immediate and ordiary jurisdiction in the whole church. Technically, it’s supremacy.

Taking the EO view as the furthest a Catholic could go:

In EO-style primacy, no bishop has any authority over another bishop as an individual, and sometimes may excercise the synod’s authority in extremis, and may call the synod, presides in and may break ties within the synod.

In Roman style “primacy,” a primatial bishop (on any level) may regulate the actions of his suffragan bishops. The concept of an Archdiocesan Synod is almost alien; the archbishop (or in 4 cases, Patriarch), while he can’t remove a suffragan, can discipline his suffragans, and has limited ordinary authority.

Papal Supremacy essentially amounts to “The Pope is Archpatriarch to the patriarchs and archbishops, in the same way that an archbishop is to his suffragan and auxiliary bishops.” As in, he can replace, retire, appoint, transfer, create, or abey any bishop. It is also part and parcel of the Roman model.

Papal primacy, in the east, follows BOTH models.

Within the Metropolitan Churches, like the Ruthenians, our synod acts as a group, with the metropolitan as its head. But our synod does not elect its primate, the metropolitan. They elect three candidates, and the Pope chooses and installs one.

In the Major Archiepiscopal churches, the Major Archbishop appoints, relieves, transfers, and ordains bishops (and archbishops) by whatever the tradition is within that church; creating and abeying bishoprics is still papal. The Marjor Archiepiscopal Synod elects one candidate, whom Rome then Approves.

In the Patriarchal Churches, the Patriarchal Synod has all the powers of a Major Archiepiscopal church’s, plus the ability to create and abey bishoprics, and to elect their own primate/patriarch/catholicos. His first act is supposed to be requesting union with Rome.

In All cases, the roman supremacy means the Pope can relieve any bishop, since he has ordinary jurisdiction in all Catholic churches, and has supremacy over all bishops. That he doesn’t do so is a good thing, but he could.

Now, by comparison, the EO view is that no primate can excercise more than the following authority over another bishop:

1. To call them to the synod.
2. to set the order of consideration at the synod
3. to break ties in the synod
4. to act in the name of the synod in the short term, but subject to ratification or reversal by the whole of the synod.

The EO vest all power in the Synod, not the Primate.
The Romans vest almost all power in the primate, not the synod.
Most of the EC’s tend to be closer to the EO within their church, but acknowledge the Supremacy of ONE bishop: the pope.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

You gave a really great description of the matter (though the discussion of the Eastern Orthodox may turn some eyes given the new forum rules )

I would like to add two points to the discussion:
First is a consideration of the ORIENTAL ecclesiology (as distinct from the Eastern ecclesiology). In Oriental ecclesiology, the importance of the Synod is maintained; however, unlike our Eastern Orthodox brethren, the confirmation of a bishop by the head bishop is no mere administrative prerogative. It is a truly spiritual function, and (granting extenuating circumstances), the acquisition of an episcopal office simply CANNOT occur without the confirmation of the Patriarch. Also, speaking from a purely Coptic Orthodox perspective (it may be the same in other OO Churches, I don’t know), the Patriarch has a greater role in the selection of a bishop than in the Eastern Orthodox Church. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, it is up to the Pope to present to the Synod the person selected by the local Church to become/replace a bishop. If the Pope judges that person to be unqualified after proper inquiry, that person will not be presented for consecration.

The second point is a response to this comment:

In All cases, the roman supremacy means the Pope can relieve any bishop, since he has ordinary jurisdiction in all Catholic churches, and has supremacy over all bishops. That he doesn’t do so is a good thing, but he could.

First, I want to make sure that readers understand that a Pope cannot relieve a bishop on a whim. I am sure that was not your intention, but I feel it needed to be said.

Second, I disagree with your statement that the Pope can relieve any bishop by virtue of his ordinary jurisdiction in all Catholic Churches, and thereby supremacy over all bishops. I say this for three reasons:

1. There is no canon that grants the Pope this prerogative with regard to simply ANY bishop (though he certainly can do so in his own Patriarchate). Canonically, only a bishop’s Patriarch has this prerogative.
2. Church history demonstrates that the Pope has never done a thing so great as depose a bishop without first calling a synod. Obviously, if a Pope does depose a bishop, he does so not by virtue of his supremacy, but by virtue of his primacy within the context of a college.
3. The supremacy of the Pope comes into play only when he becomes the final court of appeal. In this context, as granted by the universal canon that was first decreed at Sardica, a bishop can appeal his deposition by his Patriarch to the Pope. At that point, the Pope, after proper inquiry, can render a judgment to uphold or cancel the deposition. But even then, note that the Pope does not on his own initiative judge a bishop in a Patriarchate outside his own. Rather, it comes to his attention only upon appeal.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thanks Catherine.

 

[twf]

Mind you we do have a precedent of a pope deposing and appointing his own Patriarch of Constantinople…Pope St. Agapetus I did so in the 6th century. This was an extreme case in which the reigning patriarch was a heretic. This is in line with Mardukm’s description of the papacy as a “final court of appeal”. If your patriarch is a heretic who else can you appeal to save the Pope of Rome? (Assuming that the local synod is also compromised).

Mardukm: You cite canons, which is, of course, perfectly valid. Remember, however, the words of Pope St. Damasus:

Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Papal primacy, for Catholics (whether Latins or Eastern) is not derived from canons but from the words of Christ Himself.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Tyler,

Mind you we do have a precedent of a pope deposing and appointing his own Patriarch of Constantinople…Pope St. Agapetus I did so in the 6th century. This was an extreme case in which the reigning patriarch was a heretic. This is in line with Mardukm’s description of the papacy as a “final court of appeal”. If your patriarch is a heretic who else can you appeal to save the Pope of Rome? (Assuming that the local synod is also compromised).

Thank you for pointing this out. It is a classic and irrefutable case of papal appellate supremacy

Mardukm: You cite canons, which is, of course, perfectly valid. Remember, however, the words of Pope St. Damasus:

Papal primacy, for Catholics (whether Latins or Eastern) is not derived from canons but from the words of Christ Himself.

Understood, “but” as HH Pope John Paul II of thrice-blessed memory taught in his preface to the Code of Canons, every canon of the Church is perfectly aligned theologically with the doctrinal Faith of the Church. Obviously, if some canons seem to place certain boundaries on the exercise of the primacy or the supremacy, then the doctrinal matter reflects those canons (and vice-versa).

So it would not be right to simply say or believe, “the Pope has the authority to do anything he wants, but it is fortunate that he does not.” It is not as if there is some sort of dichotomy between the faith of the Church (as reflected in the dogmas and doctrines) and her practice (as reflected in the canons). Our practice as reflected in the canons is informed by what we believe, wouldn’t you agree?

Canons that seem to limit the authority of the Pope (as polemicists interpret it) are not really limits, but are mere reflections of the doctrinal reality. It is not as if the Catholic Church teaches “the Pope has the authority to do anything he wants” and then the canons limit that authority. Rather, the canons refect the doctrinal fact that the Pope can ONLY do CERTAIN things in the exercise of his collegiate primacy or appellate supremacy. For instance, a canon in both the Latin and Eastern Codes states that “the promise of any office, NO MATTER BY WHOM IT IS GIVEN, is void and of no effect.” Does this limit the authority of the Pope? The answer is that it would only be a limitation on the authority of the Pope if he has been divinely authorized to do that thing in the first place. But being able to give away ecclesiastical offices has never been in the authority of the Pope to do (and ANY Patriarch or Metropolitan for that matter).

Would you agree with what I have stated?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

It is also valid to look at it as his supremacy not being used as reflective of the orthodoxis and orthopraxis of the various churches in union with the Pope.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

It is also valid to look at it as his supremacy not being used as reflective of the orthodoxis and orthopraxis of the various churches in union with the Pope.

Yes, I can see that is a valid viewpoint if one considers the reality of the praxis. I guess I was looking at it more from the point of veiw of WHY the Pope does not use his supremacy so often. Is it because of a self-imposed restraint which he can lift at any time he wants, or is it because the Pope’s divinely-instituted prerogatives are really and objectively not as far-reaching as some people think it is (or would like it to be). I believe it is the latter case. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Aramis,

Yes, I can see that is a valid viewpoint if one considers the reality of the praxis. I guess I was looking at it more from the point of veiw of WHY the Pope does not use his supremacy so often. Is it because of a self-imposed restraint which he can lift at any time he wants, or is it because the Pope’s divinely-instituted prerogatives are really and objectively not as far-reaching as some people think it is (or would like it to be). I believe it is the latter case. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

I think that people overestimate what the Popes have considered “ordinary jurisdiction”…

But that being said, I do se papal supremacy as being appropriate. Not to the extent that some I know do, but that the papacy has the right and duty to function as overseer of all bishops, and as a form of Archpatriarch.

And, compared to excommunication, removing an offending bishop off to a seminary is a rather mild power to be worried about. And in the case of a few particular dissidents, would have been a better choice than the excommunications they recieved (tho’ those are ex-Romans…)

 

[twf]

Mardukm:
Hmm, I think I agree with what you’re saying. I’m not exactly sure what “giving away offices” means in this context. Are you saying that the Pope can not “give” a man the power of the episcopate? If so, I would agree with this. The office of the episcopate comes from the Apostles and ultimately Christ…it is simply the Holy Father (in the Latin Church and some Eastern Churches) who nominates men to receive these holy offices from the Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Tyler,

Mardukm:
Hmm, I think I agree with what you’re saying. I’m not exactly sure what “giving away offices” means in this context. Are you saying that the Pope can not “give” a man the power of the episcopate? If so, I would agree with this. The office of the episcopate comes from the Apostles and ultimately Christ…it is simply the Holy Father (in the Latin Church and some Eastern Churches) who nominates men to receive these holy offices from the Church.

I believe you, brother Aramis, and I are in agreement.

To explain “giving away offices,” the canon guarantees that any hierarch (including the Pope) cannot 1) choose his own successor; 2) give an OCCUPIED See or ecclesiastical office to another by his own SINGULAR authority or initiative. In this regard(point #2), I do question your last statement that the Holy Father nominates men in the Latin Church and traditionally Latin lands for the Eastern/Oriental Churches. Canon 147 of the Latin Code states that an ecclesiastical office can only be obtained by appointment if there is a prior presentation of the candidate. This presumes that an appointment by the Pope must be preceded by a valid presentation of candidates by the local Church. Thus, the Pope is not the only authority involved in the appointment. Would you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Tyler,

I believe you, brother Aramis, and I are in agreement.

To explain “giving away offices,” the canon guarantees that any hierarch (including the Pope) cannot 1) choose his own successor; 2) give an OCCUPIED See or ecclesiastical office to another by his own SINGULAR authority or initiative. In this regard(point #2), I do question your last statement that the Holy Father nominates men in the Latin Church and traditionally Latin lands for the Eastern/Oriental Churches. Canon 147 of the Latin Code states that an ecclesiastical office can only be obtained by appointment if there is a prior presentation of the candidate. This presumes that an appointment by the Pope must be preceded by a valid presentation of candidates by the local Church. Thus, the Pope is not the only authority involved in the appointment. Would you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

Except in certain special cases, that is the process.

The exceptions are notable:
(1) when a major archiepiscopal or patriarchal church can not come to a synodal decision on a candidate within 2 months, the pope may appoint one from within the affected church. This is an application of the Arbiter principal, really.
(2) when no candidate is proferred by the synod.
(3) when creating Roman Church bishops.
(4) in creating bishops for papal exarchies.

Usually, there is consultation even in Roman dioceses… but it isn’t a requirement.