The Petrine views

[frjohnmorris]

“Archbishop” is an honorific in the Catholic Church as well. All metropolitans (as far as I know) are also archbishops, but not all archbishops are metropolitans. The Archbishop of Winnipeg, for example, enjoys the title as an honor but does not preside over an ecclesiastical province - his archdiocese is directly under Rome. The heads of various departments of the Roman Curia often are styled archbishops but don’t preside over dioceses at all. The Archbishop of Toronto or the Archbishop of Vancouver, on the other hand, are metropolitans of their respective provinces and enjoy certain prerogatives under canon law:
-Right to celebrate the holy mass and sacraments anywhere in the province
-Right to convene a provincial synod (though this is rarely done today with the national conferences of bishops taking on such key administrative roles)
-Right to hear appeals to the rulings of other bishops in the province (though in Canada the bishops all have agreed to delegate this appellate authority to a national tribunal in Ottawa)
-Right to act as administrator of another diocese in the province if the Ordinary becomes incapacitated
-Responsibility to report issues in the Province to Rome
-Responsibility to maintain a list of suitable local candidates for the episcopate which forms the first step in the election of new bishops

The metropolitan archbishop rules his own archdiocese and presides over the wider province. The suffragan bishops of each diocese within the province, however, are autonomous within the confines of the law (as per my previous example with the Bishop of Prince George, a suffragan of the Archbishop of Vancouver). Large archdioceses, however, may have multiple aux. bishops who are dependent upon the Ordinary, such as my earlier example of the Archdiocese of Toronto. The Archbishop of Toronto can mandate kneeling in the liturgy for all parishes under his aux. bishops, but not within the dioceses of his suffragan bishops as metropolitan.
As mentioned in a previous post, between Rome and the national conferences, the traditional power of Latin national primates, and to a lesser degree, provincial metropolitans, has been eroded, but it is not meaningless by any means. When the Archdiocese of Vancouver celebrated its centennial several years ago, the Archbishop of Quebec, as Primate of Canada, presided at the mass (attended by 13 000 people…).

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Our system is not that much different. The Primate of our Archdiocese is the Metropolitan, who is also Archbishop of New York. He is also a member of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate. The diocesan Bishops are not Ordinaries in the Roman Catholic sense, but in order to prevent disunity are auxililiary Bishops assigned to various Dioceses under the Metropolitan. Together with him, they make up the local Synod that makes all major decisions concerning the spiritual affairs of the Archdiocese. Because we have autonomy, auxiliary Bishops are elected here in the United States.
What role to the laity play in the decision making process of the Catholic Church? I spoke with a Catholic Priest last week, who told me that he has a parish council, but that it is only advisory, and that he writes the checks and controls the finances of the parish. Is it that way in every parish. What about the Dioceses?

Fr. John

 

[malphono]

I believe you mean the Archbishop of Baltimore is traditionally accorded a special honor in the United States - but he is not Primate in any canonical sense.

The “special honor” accorded to the Abp of Baltimore is actually recognized by Rome, even though he is not, formally or canonically, a Primate.

The Latin metropolitans over each province (which for a smaller nation would correspond to the entire country) do still enjoy certain actual prerogatives.

What remains of of the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees are mainly ceremonial and without substance. Rome has seen to that over the past 800+ years.

“Archbishop” is an honorific in the Catholic Church as well. All metropolitans (as far as I know) are also archbishops, but not all archbishops are metropolitans.

Yes, Metropolitans are Archbishops, and yes, some who bear that title have it ad personam. There is also a third situation, that being an Archdiocese without suffragans. This was, for many years, the case with Washington DC (among a few other places). IOW, the Archbishop was Ordinary of an Archdiocese, but the Archdiocese was not a Metropolitan See since it had no suffragans.

As mentioned in a previous post, between Rome and the national conferences, the traditional power of Latin national primates, and to a lesser degree, provincial metropolitans, has been eroded, but it is not meaningless by any means.

The institution (by Rome, of course) of the so-called “national bishops conferences” had absolutely nothing to do with the dilution of the prerogatives of Primatial Sees. Those conferences are a post-conciliar phenomenon, while Rome had, as I mentioned above, taken care of the prerogatives long before that.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The “special honor” accorded to the Abp of Baltimore is actually recognized by Rome, even though he is not, formally or canonically, a Primate.

What remains of of the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees are mainly ceremonial and without substance. Rome has seen to that over the past 800+ years.

Yes, Metropolitans are Archbishops, and yes, some who bear that title have it ad personam. There is also a third situation, that being an Archdiocese without suffragans. This was, for many years, the case with Washington DC (among a few other places). IOW, the Archbishop was Ordinary of an Archdiocese, but the Archdiocese was not a Metropolitan See since it had no suffragans.

The institution (by Rome, of course) of the so-called “national bishops conferences” had absolutely nothing to do with the dilution of the prerogatives of Primatial Sees. Those conferences are a post-conciliar phenomenon, while Rome had, as I mentioned above, taken care of the prerogatives long before that.

Was the National Conference of Catholic Bishops organized on orders from Rome, or did the Catholic Bishops organize it by themselves.
Our Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America came into existence as the result of a Pan-Orthodox Council that decreed that Episcopal Assemblies be organized in every area not under the authority of an autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church to work to unite the various Orthodox jurisdictions in that region.

Fr. John

 

[Aramis]

In the Eastern Orthodox Church only a Priest authorized by his Bishop can hear Confessions. In our Antiochian tradition, a Priest who is allowed to hear Confessions is given the right to wear a vestment called an Epignathion which is a diamond shaped vestment that hangs down below the zone (cincture) on his right thigh. Because most of our parishes are far apart every Priest is given the right to hear Confessions. At least in Greece only certain Priests can hear Confessions.

Fr. John

The same is true of the Catholic church.

This is, of course, noting that the canon law of Rome requires that this permission be implicit in the appointing of priests as pastors, rectors, abbots, chaplains, or other priest-ordinaries, and extended to visiting bishops for their own faithful, and by the pope as head of the universal synod to his priests-cardinal. It is thus said that the faculty is granted “by the law itself.”

By accepting ordination to the episcopate, a priest accepts the restrictions of canon law as binding in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches, just as he had to do so at ordination to the priesthood, to the deaconate, and where preserved, the minor orders. So, the bishop has already agreed to the law before becoming a bishop, and thus when he appoints such, the faculty need not be granted specifically, as it’s simply part of the nature of the assignment, and is explicitly granted within the law, rather than by separate tomos.

Also note: In some cases, a pastor might be deprived of the faculty to hear confessions. In such cases, the exception to the law is noted - this saves a lot of paperwork overall.

In fact, the nature of the Roman Church (versus the other Catholic Churches) is such that the faculty to hear confessions is almost always bestowed moments after ordination for the good* of the faithful*. It is NOT automatic, and I’ve known a Roman priest who was not granted faculties to absolve. He was a received priest (from a schismatic organization), and until he’d been retrained, did not receive faculties other than to concelebrate and to bless sacramentals and the faithful. (The deacon had more faculties than he did!)

 

[Aramis]

Was the National Conference of Catholic Bishops organized on orders from Rome, or did the Catholic Bishops organize it by themselves.

Fr. John

They were imposed by Rome. But regional conferences is a better term, since several of them are actually multinational.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

They were imposed by Rome. But regional conferences is a better term, since several of them are actually multinational.

Actually, brother, episcopal conferences are older than V2 (if that’s what you mean). I don’t believe the structure has been imposed. Perhaps the name replaced the designation “synod” over time. The term “episcopal conference” is used at least in the mid-19th century by Latin Churches in Europe. I think “synod” was still used by the American Church at that time.

In any case, the ecclesiology of the Latin Church has always been different from the other churches. There are two points of distinction in each paradigm:
(1) In the East and Orient, the tri-fold rank of bishop-archbishop/metropolitan-patriarch became the norm, with each level having ordinary and proper authority in their respective spheres of geographical jurisdiction. In the West, however, only the bishops and the Pope as head bishop have ordinary and proper authority in their respective spheres of geographical jurisdiction. Metropolitans/archbishops in the Latin Church don’t have ordinary and proper authority. This comes from the Latin Tradition that the jurisdiction of bishops and the Pope are of divine origin, but that the jurisdiction of metropolitans/archbishops comes from the Church.
(2) Episcopal synods in the East and Orient (by “Synod,” I mean the high Petrine understanding of a head bishop with his brother bishops, never taken separately) have a collegial authority that is executive, legislative, and judicial. In the West, however, synods as such are consultative. An illustration will serve to clarify:
Suppose a synod proposes some law. In the East and Orient, the law is followed in a particular bishop’s diocese because the Synod has the authority to impose that law. In the West, however, the law is followed in a particular bishop’s diocese because the bishop allows the law to have force.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I believe you mean the Archbishop of Baltimore

I KNEW it started with a “B.” Thanks for the correction, brother.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dear brother Aramis,

Actually, brother, episcopal conferences are older than V2 (if that’s what you mean). I don’t believe the structure has been imposed. Perhaps the name replaced the designation “synod” over time. The term “episcopal conference” is used at least in the mid-19th century by Latin Churches in Europe. I think “synod” was still used by the American Church at that time.

In any case, the ecclesiology of the Latin Church has always been different from the other churches. There are two points of distinction in each paradigm:
(1) In the East and Orient, the tri-fold rank of bishop-archbishop/metropolitan-patriarch became the norm, with each level having ordinary and proper authority in their respective spheres of geographical jurisdiction. In the West, however, only the bishops and the Pope as head bishop have ordinary and proper authority in their respective spheres of geographical jurisdiction. Metropolitans/archbishops in the Latin Church don’t have ordinary and proper authority. This comes from the Latin Tradition that the jurisdiction of bishops and the Pope are of divine origin, but that the jurisdiction of metropolitans/archbishops comes from the Church.
(2) Episcopal synods in the East and Orient (by “Synod,” I mean the high Petrine understanding of a head bishop with his brother bishops, never taken separately) have a collegial authority that is executive, legislative, and judicial. In the West, however, synods as such are consultative. An illustration will serve to clarify:
Suppose a synod proposes some law. In the East and Orient, the law is followed in a particular bishop’s diocese because the Synod has the authority to impose that law. In the West, however, the law is followed in a particular bishop’s diocese because the bishop allows the law to have force.

Blessings,
Marduk

That distinction exists because the Bishop of Rome was the only Patriarch in the West. I know that there are Western Bishops who have the title Patriarch. Like the Bishops of Venice and Lisbon, but they are not Patriarchs in the Eastern understanding of a Patriarch. In the West the title is purely honorific. The West did not follow the example of the East, which recognized the autocephaly of a Church once it had become mature. For example, the Council of Ephesus recognized the autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus. Here is a list of the autocephalous and autonomous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. When there are two dates, the first is the date when a Church declared itself autocephalous, the second is when the Ecumenical and other Patriarchs recognized the autocephaly of a particular Church. An autonomous Church administers its own internal affairs, and elects its own Bishops. However, the Primate must be approved by the autocephalous Church with authority over an autonomous Church.
Also in the East Holy Synods are not advisory, but have authority over the Primate and can override his decisions. Thus the Eastern Orthodox Church has continued to follow the principle expressed in Canon 34 of the Apostles, “but neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all…” We also continue to follow Canon XIX of Chalcedon which requires that the Holy Synods meet at least twice a year. I would argue that since the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church and the Ecumenical Councils were divinely inspirited that our system is of divine origin.

Ranked in order of seniority, with the year of independence (autocephaly) given in the parenthesis.
Four Ancient Patriarchates

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem

Junior Patriarchates

Russian Orthodox Church (1448, recognized in 1589)
Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church (486)
Bulgarian Orthodox Church (870)
Serbian Orthodox Church (1219)
Romanian Orthodox Church (1872, recognized in 1885)

Autocephalous Archbishoprics

Church of Cyprus (431, recognized in 478)
Church of Greece (1833, recognized in 1850)
Albanian Orthodox Church (1922, recognized in 1937)
Polish Orthodox Church (1924)
Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church (1951)
Orthodox Church in America (1970, autocephaly not universally recognised[3])

The four ancient patriarchates are most senior, followed by the five junior patriarchates. Autocephalous archbishoprics follow the patriarchates in seniority, with the Church of Cyprus being the only ancient one (AD 431). In the diptychs of the Russian Orthodox Church and some of its daughter churches (e.g., the Orthodox Church in America), the ranking of four of the patriarchal churches is different. Following the Russian Church in rank is Georgian, followed by Serbian, Romanian, and then Bulgarian Church. The ranking of the archbishoprics is the same.
CONTINUED

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE

Autonomous Orthodox churches

under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

Finnish Orthodox Church
Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church* (autonomy recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate but not by the Russian Orthodox Church)
Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe*

under the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch

Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America

under the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem

Orthodox Church of Mount Sinai

under the Russian Orthodox Church

Belarusian Orthodox Church
Latvian Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church* (autonomy recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church but not by the Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Moldovan Orthodox Church
Japanese Orthodox Church* (autonomy recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church but not by the Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Chinese Orthodox Church* ( autonomy recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church but not by the Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia*

under the Serbian Orthodox Church

Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric

under the Romanian Orthodox Church

Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia
Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in the Americas

You will notice that although there are some disagreements about the status of a particular Church, that Communion has not been broken. We can disagree on administrative matters but as long as we share a common doctrine we can remain in Communion with each other.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Perhaps the West didn’t believe or follow the example of the East, which recognized the autocephaly of a Church because they do not believe it to be as they would suggest. What said the Council of Nicaea regarding the Roman Pontiff?

catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/the-sixth-nicene-canon-and-the-papacy-by-fr-james-f-loughlin/

 

[frjohnmorris]

That article has to be the most convoluted misinterpretation of history that I have ever read. The Latin translation is irrelevant because the canon was written in Greek. Therefore the meaning of the original Greek is authoritative not the Latin translation. The official summary of every canon is contained in its ancient Epitome.

Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As
also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.

The phrase “over those subject to Rome” limits the authority of the Pope to the West. It is a total misreading of this canon to interpret it as giving Rome universal jurisdiction. The canon affirms the independence of Alexandria and Antioch, which despite the article that you cited are alive and well. Although the number of believers in Egypt under the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria is fairly small, there are hundreds of thousands of believers under Alexandria in Sub-Sahara Africa. Antioch not only has jurisdiction over the Churches in Syria, Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East outside of the areas of Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Jordan which belong to Jerusalem, but also all over the world.
The Rudder, the official book of Eastern Orthodox canon law contains the following commentary on this canon:
So. inasmuch as this is the truth of the matter, and the diocese of Rome is limited like
that of Alexandria. it is in vain that the Romans imagine that this Canon entitles them
to unlimited authority over the whole world.

We also know that the Eastern Orthodox interpretation of Canon VI of Nicea I is correct, because that is the interpretation recognized by the Ecumenical Councils that followed Nicaea I. Canon 28 of Chalcedon shows that the East never recognized universal papal jurisdiction.

Fr. John

 

[twf]

…
Also in the East Holy Synods are not advisory, but have authority over the Primate and can override his decisions. Thus the Eastern Orthodox Church has continued to follow the principle expressed in Canon 34 of the Apostles, “but neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all…”
…

Father,
I ask you to carefully consider brother Marduk’s thoughts on Apostolic Canon 34 in the Orthodoxy and Eastern Rite thread. I do not believe the Orthodox are faithfully following this canon at all. Both the, to use Marduk’s phrases, “Low Petrine” advocates in Eastern Orthodoxy and the “Absolutist Petrine” advocates in certain Latin circles distort this canon to serve their own purposes. The Orthodox narrow in on the command that the head do nothing without the consent of the bishops, while some Latins narrow in on the command that the bishops do nothing without the consent of the head…while we High Petrine advocates take the canon as it is written: the head and the body must work together. The bishops do not have the authority to do anything without the consent of their head, but nor should the head act without the consent of the bishops. The Pope, even in those rare, rare, rare cases when he does use his authority to speak “ex cathedra”, always does so in consultation with his brother bishops. Pope Francis recently said:

“We must walk together: the people, the bishops and the pope. Synodality should be lived at various levels. Maybe it is time to change the methods of the Synod of Bishops, because it seems to me that the current method is not dynamic. This will also have ecumenical value, especially with our Orthodox brethren. From them we can learn more about the meaning of episcopal collegiality and the tradition of synodality. The joint effort of reflection, looking at how the church was governed in the early centuries, before the breakup between East and West, will bear fruit in due time. In ecumenical relations it is important not only to know each other better, but also to recognize what the Spirit has sown in the other as a gift for us. I want to continue the discussion that was begun in 2007 by the joint [Catholic–Orthodox] commission on how to exercise the Petrine primacy, which led to the signing of the Ravenna Document. We must continue on this path.”

This is the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Why do you think the Second Vatican Council was called after the decrees of the First Vatican Council? Why have a couple dozen Synods of Catholic Bishops been called since Vatican II? Why does Rome typically ratify any decisions made by the local episcopal conferences? The answer is simple: the authentic tradition of Apostolic Canon 34 is still at play. Is the Pope subject to Ecumenical Councils? No. Is the Pope above Ecumenical Councils? No. Both questions are silly - for there cannot be an ecumenical council without the pope nor can there be without the bishops - head and body are one and it is only together that the Council has its authority. As Apostolic Canon 34 makes clear, the bishops are forbidden from doing anything without the consent of the head, and the head is not to do anything without the consent of the bishops.

 

[mardukm]

That distinction exists because the Bishop of Rome was the only Patriarch in the West.

That doesn’t explain why the Metropolitan/archbishop level in the West does not have proper/ordinary authority.

Btw, thank you so much for giving that detailed account of the Patriarchates in the EOC. It was very informative.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Perhaps the West didn’t believe or follow the example of the East, which recognized the autocephaly of a Church because they do not believe it to be as they would suggest. What said the Council of Nicaea regarding the Roman Pontiff?

catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/papacy/the-sixth-nicene-canon-and-the-papacy-by-fr-james-f-loughlin/

Brother, I cannot access the link (maybe because of my location in the Philippines), though I really want to read it. Is there any way you can copy and paste the contents, perhaps if it is not too long?

Father John, barring a full copy/paste of the contents if it is too large, can you please copy/paste the portions from the link that you find objectionable?

Thank you both.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Latin translation is irrelevant because the canon was written in Greek. Therefore the meaning of the original Greek is authoritative not the Latin translation.

The latin translation is irrelevant to the Father also except in the polemics used by those assaulting the Primacy.

The translation is Greek-English.

Let us approach this famous document, and translate it as we should a passage from Thucydides:

ENGLISH: “Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be strictly adhered to, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these; since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner, as regards Antioch and the other provinces, let each church retain its special privileges.” (Canon 6)

GREEK: Ta archaia ethe krateito ta en Aigupto kai Liboe kai Pentapolei, hoste ton Alexandreias episopon panton touton echein ten exousian, epeide kai to en te Rome episkopo touto sunethes estin. Homoios de kai kata Antiocheian kai en tais allais eparchias ta presbeia sozesthai tais ekklesiais…

Confining our attention to the clause (epeide…touto sunethes), let us at the outset assure ourselves that our translation faithfully represents the original. The term (sunethes), according to Hedricus, denotes consuetus, familiaris, and is translated by Liddell and Scott, habitual, customary. The phrase (sunethes tini estin) is equivalent to the well known Latin expression familiare orconsuetum est mihi: it is my custom. It cannot be rendered, “It is the custom of others regarding me.” Hence Hefele’s rendering, “There is a similar custom for the Roman Bishop,” is evidently incorrect. (Da auch fnr den r-mischen Bischof em gleiches VerhSltniss besteht, Conciliengeschichte, volume i, page 389, new edition).

In fact, Hefele was influenced by the old version of Dionysius the Less, who has rendered the clause thus: Quia et Urbis Romm Episcopo parlis mos est. This is unsatisfactory; for there is no equivalent for parilis in the Greek text, and there is no equivalent in the Dionysian version for the Greek (touto). The earliest Latin version – that which was read in the Council of Chalcedon – is more to the point: Quoniam et Romano Episcopo hmc est consuetudo; which coincides with our own. Protestant writers have also rendered the text as we have done, though naturally they strive afterwards to blunt the edge of it. Thus Sheppherd [8] translates it: “Since this is also the Roman Bishop’s custom.” Neander: [9] “Since this is the custom also with the Roman Bishop.” Schaff: [10]“Since this also is customary with the Bishop of Rome.” We are justified, then, in assuming that our translation is a faithful reproduction of the text; [11] and may safely make it the basis of our further remarks.

the Synod made no enactment of any kind in regard to the Roman Pontiff. This canon neither grants new privileges to the Apostolic See, nor confirms any existing ones. For some reason or other, the Council did not think it necessary to legislate upon the Bishop of Rome. It strengthened the hands of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, and of the Exarchs of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. In Canon VII. it conceded a Patriarchate of Honor to the Bishop of the Holy City; but it did not DARE exercise, in any way, a legislative authority over the city of St. Peter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cont.

Rufinus wrote a History of the Church in continuation of the immortal work of Eusebius, and inserted in it a Latin translation of the Nicene Canons. But his character of rhetorician did not permit him to give the decrees to his readers in the plain, unambitious style of the good Fathers of the Council. He was fain to embellish them and give them a high-sounding, antithetical form. The result of his lucubration upon our canon is the following sententious effusion: “Et ut apud Alexandriam, et in Urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Egypti, vel hic Suburbicarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat.” [12]

Now this “translation” ought to be brushed aside as undeserving of notice, and it is pitiable to see how much time and pains have been wasted by eminent scholars upon the barren task of determining what Rufinus meant by his “suburban churches.” What did he mean by his whole translation? Did he understand it himself? As every one knows, Rufinus was the prince of bunglers. He was notoriously ignorant, and just as rash and stubborn as he was unskilful. His knowledge of the Greek was scanty, having been picked up without system or teacher. As for his Latin, the above specimen convinces us that he richly deserved St. Jerome’s contemptuous criticisms. [13] It must be remembered, moreover, that shortly before writing his history he had been excommunicated for heresy by Pope Anastasius. Hence, we cannot expect to be assisted by Rufinus in our investigation of this subject. Let us return to the text.

The kernel of the difficulty is the demonstrative (touto), this. “This is the custom of the Roman Bishop.” What does this refer to? “Let the Bishop of Alexandria retain his ancient sway over these three provinces, for this is also the Roman Bishop’s custom.” According to Bellarmine and others, (touto) refers to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and is to be expounded thus: “Let the Bishop of Alexandria continue to govern these provinces, because this is also the Roman Pontiff’s custom; that is, because the Roman Pontiff, prior to any synodical enactment, has repeatedly recognized the Alexandrian Bishop’s authority over this tract of country.” [14]

This exposition is unpalatable to the adversaries of Roman supremacy; hence they offer us a different interpretation. They make (touto) refer to patriarchates in general and expound the sentence as follows: “Let Alexandria have jurisdiction over these provinces, because the Roman Bishop has also a Patriarchate.” “It illustrates the sort of power by referring to a similar power exercised by the Roman prelate in his province.” [15]

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cont.

IV. Although this second exposition might strike the reader at first sight as being possibly, correct, yet I trust I shall be able to prove that it is inadmissible; and that Bellarmine’s is the only unexceptionable interpretation.

Let me, at the risk of being tedious, state, first of all, my understanding of the passage. The supremacy of the Bishop of Alexandria had been contested by the Meletian bishops. They had, asked him, if not in words at least in facts, upon what warrant he based his claim to rule over and depose his fellow-bishops. If he had a title let him produce it. Now the Alexandrian prelate had no written document of any kind to produce. The Council of Nicaea, therefore, came to his assistance, by decreeing that the Patriarch’s [16] authority must be respected, and that for two reasons: first, because it was (archaia), immemorial, aboriginal; and second, because it was sanctioned by constant recognition on the part of the Roman Pontiff. Two very good reasons.

The first argument in favor of this interpretation is drawn from the grammatical structure of the text. (a) Take the pronoun (touto) and see what it obviously refers to. Surely to this subject in hand, to wit, the ancient privileges and boundaries of the Alexandrian Patriarchate. It seems impossible, without quibbling, to refer the (touto) to anything else. The only objection which can be urged against this is the (kai), also. What is the use of the (kai) in this interpretation? This objection is readily answered. The (kai) introduces a new and stronger reason why the Patriarch’s authority should be respected. “Let the custom prevail, not only because it is ancient, but especially because it has Roman usage in its favor;” or, “Since even the Roman Bishop constantly recognizes it.” (b) The word (sunethes), customary, is intelligible in our interpretation, but in the alternative it becomes absurd. “It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to recognize the Bishop of Alexandria as Patriarch,” is clear and sensible; but, “It is customary with the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch,” is devoid of sense.

A second argument in support of our interpretation is elicited by considering the logical sequence of the passage. “This is the Roman Bishop’s custom,” is the Council’s reason for supporting the Alexandrian claims. If it is a reason, we must reverentially presume that it is a valid one. The ancient fabric of the Patriarchate was tottering; the Nicene Fathers prop it up with this clause, which, therefore, contains a reason strong enough to sustain a Patriarchate. Now imagine Meletius demanding wherefore Lycopolis should be subject to Alexandria? If the Council be made to answer: “Because Tusculum is subject to Rome,” would it not appear a “lame and impotent conclusion?” Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis must obey the Bishop of Alexandria; because this (not Egypt, etc., but Campania and the islands) is the Roman Pontiff’s custom! [17] Besides, granting that Rome’s possessing a Patriarchate were a valid reason why Alexandria also should have one, would it be a sufficient reason why the Alexandrian Patriarchate should extend just so far and no further? If so, then the following ratiocination must be considered sound: " Let the Alexandrian Bishop have jurisdiction over three provinces, because the Bishop of Rome is also a patriarch." Should any one rejoin that the reason why Alexandria happened to rule three provinces instead of two or four, was that this was the ancient custom, I answer that his reason is different from that of the Council, which tells us that “Alexandria shall rule these three because this is the Roman Bishop’s custom.”

Now take Bellarmine’s view of the canon. “Why shall Meletitis and all the other bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis acknowledge the supremacy of the Patriarch?” Because the Bishop of Rome has time and again recognized the authority of the Alexandrian Bishop over these provinces. “Where are the documents to prove this?” asks Meletius. “Documents are not necessary,” says the canon, “custom has force of law. Has not the Bishop of Rome, ever since he sent Mark to found churches in Egypt, held the Bishop of Alexandria responsible for purity of faith and strict observance of discipline in that part of the world?” [18]

What could Meletius reply to this? If he and the Council admitted the Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy his mouth was closed. Here was a reason strong enough to sustain not Alexandria merely but, “in like manner, Antioch and the other great eparchies;” their authority was sanctioned by the Vicar of Christ. But if we assume that the Bishop of Rome was, in the opinion of the ancients, a simple bishop, like any other, what weight would his recognition of Alexandrian claims then carry with it? None at all. The Meletian would answer, "What care I for the favor or displeasure of a bishop a thousand miles away? What right has the Roman to recognize any one’s jurisdiction in Egypt? Antioch is nearer to me than Rome, and so are Carthage and Ephesus but the bishops of Antioch, and of Carthage and of Ephesus know very well they have no right to meddle with things in Egypt After having thrown off the tyrannical yoke of an Egyptian is it probable that I shall be swayed by the opinion of a Latin?

We are now led to the threshold of a third argument which I shall forthwith proceed to develop. The Council was evidently desirous of establishing the Patriarchates on the firmest possible foundation. Hitherto the Bishop of Alexandria or of Antioch,

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cont.

As one secure Sat on his throne, upheld by old repute, Consent, or custom. But “old repute” can uphold a throne so long as things go smoothly; but if there be no “strength concealed” within, the throne will fall to the ground at the first touch of a skeptical hand. Now, knowing as we do, that, so far as divine right was concerned, the Bishop of Lycopolis was the peer of the Bishop of Alexandria, upon what principle of ecclesiastical law could the latter base his claim to judge and depose the former? In other words, what was the original source of that patriarchal authority which the Alexandrian wielded? Every Catholic must answer that, whereas, per se, the bishops are mutually independent within their proper jurisdiction, they, of divine right, have no other superior than the successor of St. Peter, and, in consequence, a bishop who shall claim any legitimate sort of precedence or authority over a fellow-bishop, must of necessity found his pretension upon the expressed or tacit consent of the Roman Pontiff.

In the Catholic system, then, “Alexandria, Antioch, and the other eparchies,” were exercising prerogatives which belonged, natively, to the chair of Peter, and we are forced to the conclusion that they and the Council were as sensible of this as we are ourselves. Therefore, the clause in question can bear no other interpretation than this: “Alexandria and the other great Sees must retain their ancient sway because the Roman Pontiff wishes it.” Understood in this sense the (epeide) places the archiepiscopal thrones on the firmest – and indeed the only firm-foundation. Why should we deem the Fathers of Nicaea either less “Roman” than ourselves, or less capable of comprehending their strongest argument in favor of Alexandria? Suppose a parallel case to happen in our own day and country. Suppose that, ages ago, the Roman Pontiff had dispatched to these provinces a missionary with episcopal ordination and unlimited, unwritten jurisdiction. If in course of time the throne on which “as one secure lie sat upheld by old repute” should be shaken by an unruly suffragan, what might we suppose would be the ruling of a plenary Council? The Fathers would probably enact: That the authority of the Bishop of Baltimore must be respected; that it was unnecessary to apply to Rome for a formal recognition of his primacy, since the custom of the Roman Pontiff, invariably to address himself to the churches in these provinces through his medium, was an ample justification of his claim.

It may be objected that this argument would have no weight with Protestants. What of that? Are we to abandon our old standard of interpretation, our “Catholic analogy,” because, for-sooth, we cannot induce “those who are without” to view things from our standpoint? Let our adversaries prove that our interpretation is false; for the burden of proof is upon them.

But we have a fourth argument, of which every historian must feel the force. I refer to the establishment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In my last argument, I took for granted that the only foundation upon which a Patriarchate could legitimately rest was the consent of the Roman Pontiff This assertion we are able historically to make good, by observing a Patriarchate in process of crystallization.

Shortly after the date of the Nicene Council, the little town of Byzantium was by the genius of Constantine metamorphosed into Constantinople, the New Rome and Mistress of the East. With the magnitude of the city grew the importance and pretensions of its bishop, who now became the emperor’s ecclesiastical adviser, the arbiter of bishops, the chief organizer of missionary expeditions, and the president of politico-ecclesiastical assemblies. A dignitary of such importance seemed to the emperor, the senate, the metropolitan clergy, and the Eastern bishops, [19] to be deserving of the highest honor. Hence the second General Council (AD 381), in its third Canon, decreed that “the Bishop of Constantinople should rank in the Church next after tile Bishop of Rome,” giving as its reason that Constantinople was a new Rome. [20]

But this canon never obtained the (bebeiosis kai sugkathesis) – the confirmation and consent-of the Roman Bishop, without which even the Byzantine was conscious that his authority was founded on the sand. Hence, in the fourth Council, taking advantage, as St. Leo has remarked, of the prostrate position of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch, [21] the Bishop of New Rome, Anatolius, made a desperate attempt to gain a more solid footing for his Patriarchate. Pope Leo, in anticipation of this, had strictly enjoined his legates “not to suffer the Nicene Decree to be violated.” The Fathers of the Council, however, – some no doubt for political motives, others because they were given to understand that Leo was not so much opposed to the innovation as his legates would have them believe, – granted the Byzantine the desire of his heart. But now the more serious task remained of inducing the Pope to ratify the decision of the Council.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cont.

The Council wrote to Leo, so did the Emperor, so did the Patriarch; all begging the same favor, and all acknowledging that the validity of the act depended on his confirmation. “We make known to you furthermore,” wrote the Fathers of Chalcedon to the successor of St. Peter, “that we have made still another enactment which we have deemed necessary for the maintenance of good order and discipline, and we are persuaded that your Holiness will approve and confirm our decree… We are confident you will shed upon the Church of Constantinople a ray of that Apostolic splendor which you possess, for you have ever cherished this church, and you are not at all niggardly in imparting your riches to your children. . . Vouchsafe then, most Holy and most Blessed Father, to accept what we have done in your name, and in a friendly spirit (hos oikeia te kai phila). For your legates have made a violent stand against it, desiring, no doubt, that this good deed should proceed, in the first instance, from your provident hand. But we, wishing to gratify the pious Christian emperors, and the illustrious Senate, and the capital of the empire, have judged that an Ecumenical Council was the fittest occasion for effecting this measure. Hence we have made bold to confirm the privileges of the afore-mentioned city (tharresantes ekurosamen) as if your holiness had taken the initiative, for we know how tenderly you love your children, and we feel that in honoring the child we have honored its parent…We have informed you of everything with a view of proving our sincerity, and of obtaining for our labors your confirmation and consent.” [22]

Anatolius writes to the same purpose: “The holy Synod and I have submitted this canon to your Holiness in order to obtain your assent and confirmation, which I beseech your Holiness not to withhold.” [23]

And in a later epistle he assures the Pope that “the whole efficacy and ratification of the decree had been reserved to the authority of his Holiness.” [24]

We have also two letters of the Emperor Marcian to Pope Leo, in which he acknowledges that the Pope’s sanction is absolutely necessary to the validity of the canon.

“Since it has pleased the Synod to grant the Bishop of Constantinople the post of honour next after the Apostolic See, I pray your Holiness to give assent to this arrangement.” [25] And a few months later he writes endeavoring, with evident anxiety, to hurry on the cautious Pontiff

“I am puzzled beyond measure to know wherefore your Holiness, although fully informed by the bishops assembled at Chalcedon of the proceedings of the Council, has not yet dispatched us that epistle which must be read in every church, so as to reach the notice of all. This delay has afforded an opportunity to the evil-disposed to suggest a doubt whether your Holiness would confirm the acts of the Synod. Deign, therefore, to send a letter which shall certify the churches and the faithful that the decrees of the Council have been confirmed by your Holiness. Very laudably, indeed, and with a constancy worthy of the Bishop of the Apostolic See, your Holiness has resisted the attempt which was made to disturb the ancient order of things as established by the canons. But you have, no doubt, been apprised of the active machinations of the enemies of the faith, against whom I have been unwilling to proceed because the Council’s exposition of orthodox faith has not yet received your confirmation. I pray your Holiness, therefore, to send us a decretal with all possible dispatch, so that it may become manifest to all that you confirm the Synod of Chalcedon.”

St. Leo readily assented to the emperor’s request and ratified all the dogmatic decrees of the Council. But he and his successors resolutely condemned this surreptitious canon in favor of New Rome.[26] In consequence the political Patriarchate of Constantinople lacked ecclesiastical confirmation; and this 28th canon of Chalcedon was not admitted into the Greek synodical code until the Eastern Church had become thoroughly saturated with Byzantinism. [27]

Bring this analogy of a Patriarchate in fieri to bear upon the subject under discussion, and my former argument returns in a new shape. The Nicene Council desired to confirm the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Now the only way of accomplishing this was to show that the Bishop of Rome had “shed a ray of apostolic splendor upon his favored child.” Therefore the clause, “Since this is the Roman Bishop’s custom,” must mean, “Since this is the Roman Bishop’s will as expressed by custom.”

Another powerful argument in support of our interpretation of this sixth Nicene canon, is that the ancients saw in it a plain and formal acknowledgment by the Fathers of Nicaea of the primacy of the Apostolic See. Indeed, Pope St. Gelasius proclaims it an invictum et singulare judicium. “By what process of reasoning can you persuade yourselves,” he writes to the Eastern bishops, “that the rights of the other Sees will be respected, if due reverence be not paid to the supreme See of Blessed Peter,-that See which has ever been the support and bulwark of all sacerdotal dignity, and to which the unique and irrefragable testimony of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers acknowledges immemorial veneration.” [28] Hence, if we believe Gelasius, the Roman Pontiff’s name was made use of by the Nicene Fathers to serve as a support and bulwark for the privileges enjoyed by “Alexandria, Antioch, and the other eparchies.” The Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian also give expression to this widespread sentiment in their celebrated edict on the subject of the primacy of the Apostolic See. The civil power, they argue, must recognize the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church, first, because he is the successor of St. Peter, the Chief of Bishops; second, because of the dignity of his city; and third, because his supremacy has been confirmed by the sacred council.[29]

 

[GaryTaylor]

Cont

Now the “sacred council,” so far as we know, had no other occasion of introducing the subject of Roman supremacy than this Alexandrian question, and to this sixth canon, therefore, as all admit, the Emperors were alluding. True, it may be objected that the Emperors’ argument is based not upon the original text, but on the old Latin version, which contained the famous additamentum. “Quod Ecclesia Romana semper habuit Primatum.” (The Bishop of Rome has ever been head of the Church.) [30] It seems quite probable that such was the case, for the edict emanated immediately from the Western Emperor, and at the suggestion of St. Leo. But we cannot suppose, for a moment, that it was the Pope, or any of his clergy, who drew up the document, because the Roman Church would have vehemently denied that any synod did or could confirm its primacy. A score of years before, Bonifacius, in the epistle already quoted from, had expressed the views of the Apostolic See upon the attitude of the Nicene Council regarding the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff. “Non aliquid super eum ausa est constituere.” It follows, that the Latin version had passed the critical examination of the imperial lawyers, who would have been quick to detect an interpolation in the document, had there been one. But they took the additamentum for what it really was – a title; and their understanding of the clause, Episcopo Romano hmc est consuetudo, was the same as the original translator’s, the same as Pope Gelasius’s, the same as Bellarmine’s.

It has, of course, been insinuated by hostile writers, though somewhat timorously, that the Latin variation was a deliberate interpolation by the Romans with a view of extolling their chief; nay, some have even laid the blame of it upon the “ambitious Popes” themselves. I do not propose to enter largely into the uninvestigable question of determining the intentions of people who lived and died ages ago. The Bishops of Rome have ever been distinguished for scrupulous attention to the genuineness of their documents. From the earliest ages, the fact of a text proceeding ex scriniis Ecclesiam Romanum, was the best witness to its accuracy. The version of our canon which was read by Parchasinus at Chalcedon, is a faithful reproduction of the original. The words Quod, Romana, etc., cannot be called an interpolation, because they were not inter; they were ante; which is equivalent to saying, they were the title prefixed to the canon in the Roman Codex. [31]

Now, therefore, the inference drawn from the text by the Latin translator was, that it acknowledged the primacy of the Apostolic See. This is all that we can expect to find in this title, and it is all that we seek to find in it. I have no doubt but the author of the translation considered himself justified in giving the canons what he judged to be the most appropriate headings, for the original had none. And what more felicitous heading than this could a Latin have selected? It was pithy and contained the very soul of the decree. “Let Alexandria, Antioch, and the other great Sees retain their privileges, because this is the Roman Bishop’s custom.” To a Latin, the particular privileges of the Eastern churches were a matter of slight moment. The only interesting feature of the canon to him was that the Bishop of Rome’s authority had been made the common basis and foundation of the various prerogatives of the individual churches. Is it not a strong confirmation of our own interpretation to know that it coincides with that of the contemporaries of the Council?

Dr. Schaff contends that this “interpolation” was rejected by the Greeks at Chalcedon. The only foundation for this assertion is that in the acts of the IVth Council, it is stated that upon the legate’s reading the Nicene Canon as it stood in his codex, Constantine, the Greek secretary, read the same canon without the interpolation from the codex preserved in Constantinople. This is a feeble basis to build such an argument upon. For, first, Baluzius, Ballerini, and Hefele contend that this repetition is not to be found in the manuscripts prior to Photius. But, secondly, if Constantine had read the canon again, for the grave purpose of denouncing a Roman forgery, or of resisting Roman encroachments, he would not have contented himself with a quiet re-reading of the canon. If, therefore, he read it at all, it must have been for the sake of preserving the verbal accuracy of the decree, which cannot but have suffered by the process of a double translation, from Greek into Latin, and from the Latin again into the Greek. Indeed this incident of the Council of Chalcedon does but strengthen our argument; for we now may add that the Greeks themselves admitted that the canon of Nicaea acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope.

The question then before the Fathers was whether Constantinople should have a Patriarchate. The Pope’s legate maintained that the Nicene Canon forbade any change to be made in the relative standing of the churches. The clergy of Constantinople adduced the Third Canon of the Second Council, which conceded to their master the post of honor next after the Bishop of Rome. “After the debate,” Dr. Schaff tells us, “the imperial commissioners thus summed up the result. From the whole discussion, and from what has been brought forward on either side, we acknowledge that the primacy over all (pro panton ta proteia), and the most eminent rank (kai ten exaireton timen) are to continue with the Archbishop of old Rome; but that also the Archbishop of New Rome should enjoy the same precedence of honor (ta presbeia tes times).” I should be happy to see Dr. Schaff make good his point against Hefele, as it would add new strength to my statement that the ancients understood this sixth Nicene canon to be a clear acknowledgment of the primacy of the Apostolic See.