Why Does the Eastern Orthodox Church Not Accept the Primacy of Peter?

[sealabeag]

This is a question for any Eastern Orthodox Catholics here. Well obviously anyone can answer but I’m just interested in their perspective, specifically.
This is probably not a simple question to answer but why do Eastern Catholics not accept the primacy of Peter, even though Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to him, and built His Church on Peter?
Thanks.

 

[AlNg]

There is a rather detailed answer to that. " The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy. While not denying that some form of primacy could exist for the Bishop of Rome, Orthodox Christians argue that the tradition of Rome’s primacy in the early Church was not equivalent to the current doctrine of supremacy."
Please see:

Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy - Wikipedia

 

[sealabeag]

One would think that if the Orthodox Church considered the Bishop of Rome to have some level of primacy they would have tried to stay in communion with him…
I should probably read more on this before asking simple questions but the topic of the Orthodox church is something I’ve never considered before.

 

[AlNg]

One would think that if the Orthodox Church considered the Bishop of Rome to have some level of primacy they would have tried to stay in communion with him…

The Fourth Crusade did not help much. Actually, it brought relations between EO and RC to an all time low.

 

[ReaderT]

Many Orthodox would be fine with the primacy of the Roman church as it was in the first 1000 years (with the Pope as the “First among equals”), but not his supremacy over the whole Church.

A very firm rule in Canon law since ancient times is the idea of “One Bishop in one city.” Well, if the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the church, then in essence he is a Bishop over all his other Bishops, and he is a second Bishop in every city.

 

[dochawk]

This is probably not a simple question to answer but why do Eastern Catholics not accept the primacy of Peter

There is nowhere to go from this question, as you are starting from a false premise.

AFAIK, no Orthodox, ever, has denied Peter’s primacy. Even many Protestants are finding it hard to deny.

That said, there are huge steps between “Peter’s primacy” among the apostles and “the Bishop of Monarch has absolute, universal, and immediate primacy everywhere”

And see @ReaderT’s comment in particular.

One would think that if the Orthodox Church considered the Bishop of Rome to have some level of primacy they would have tried to stay in communion with him…

Check history. While there is plenty of fault on both sides, it was Rome, not the Orthodox, the broke communion.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Check history. While there is plenty of fault on both sides, it was Rome, not the Orthodox, the broke communion.

As you may remember, from the 2,000 plus post discussion a few months ago regarding everything Catholic and Orthodox it is a bit more nuanced than merely “Rome broke communion with the Orthodox, therefore the Orthodox are the victims of the Schism etc.”

This is probably not a simple question to answer but why do Eastern Catholics not accept the primacy of Peter, even though Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to him, and built His Church on Peter?

I assume by Eastern Catholics you mean Eastern Orthodox Catholics (not in communion with Rome)?

 

[twf]

A very firm rule in Canon law since ancient times is the idea of “One Bishop in one city.” Well, if the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the church, then in essence he is a Bishop over all his other Bishops, and he is a second Bishop in every city.

Arguably, by this line of thought, the fact that synods, and even more so, ecumenical councils, can exercise authority over local Churches / bishops, suggests that every bishop of the synod / council is a “second bishop” in the local Church…so I respectfully would reject this particular objection to the papacy. Vatican I defined the dogma of papal primacy; Vatican II elaborated upon it. Vatican II is clear to state that every bishop is a vicar of Christ, and not a vicar or deputy of the Pope. Yes, the Pope of Rome, like an ecumenical council or a synod, does exercise an authority over the entire Church, but he never replaces or supplants the role of the local bishop as vicar of Christ for his own Church.

Ironically, I get the impression that in some ways the average local Catholic bishop is more autonomous than the average local Orthodox bishop…as a direct result of the gradual degradation of local primacy / synodality in the Western Church. The tendency to gradually emphasize papal primacy at the expense of local primacy has, counter-intuitively, actually increased the autonomy of local bishops…after all, how can thousands of bishops around the world actually report to one man? They can’t. Its nonsense. Thankfully, since Vatican II, we have seen a gradual restoration of local collegiality… the Orthodox Church must, in my humble opinion, restore universal primacy, while we must restore local / regional primacy… ideally there is a true synergy between the Christ-given autonomy of the local bishop, as vicar of Christ over his particular Church, the regional primacy of the synod/metropolitan, and the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome… at all levels - local, regional, and universal - let the body do nothing without the head, and the head do nothing without the body.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Check history. While there is plenty of fault on both sides, it was Rome, not the Orthodox, the broke communion.

Are you sure? While there was never formal excommunication against Church of Rome or West- a very important point, that does not mean there wasn’t break of communion by virtue of something else. As far as I know Church of Rome has never excommunicated East at large and only excommunicated those who stood with Patriarch Michael Cerularius in defying Latin Eucharist and denying “through the Son” theology (nothing about Creed)- and even that excommunication was invalid.

Nikodemos of Athos talks about this in his commentary on the canons- no canonical penalty has any force unless a living council enacts it. Because there wasn’t council condemning Latins, we are de-jure not in real state of Schism from Orthodox viewpoint. Papacy itself was first anathemized by name in 1583 so that’s another thing to take into consideration.

Just as an example, Greek Old Calendarists said that hierarchy is deposed by adopting new Calendar. New Calendarists said that since they condemned hierarchy without council they excommunicated themselves. New Calendarists used that lack of canonical trial as a proof that Old Calendarists broke off the Church. However, wasn’t same done by Orthodox Church? Notice the parallel in following paragraph.

Orthodox Church declared Pope heretic without canonical trial, hence they excommunicated themselves. Orthodox Church hence must acknowledge that according to canons they broke off the Church. Quite an interesting spin on things, isn’t it? And this is all according to Orthodox ecclesiology…

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

This is probably not a simple question to answer but why do Eastern Catholics not accept the primacy of Peter, even though Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to him, and built His Church on Peter?

Eastern Catholics do accept Primacy of Peter. So do Eastern Orthodox nominally but they deny implications. Historically, primacy was never outside authority. Even Eastern Patriarchs used to exercise direct power over their Bishops before Fall of Constantinople. Oriental Orthodoxy still holds to this standard.

Eastern Catholics are fully Catholic. They accept what I and you do (but their Churches are not directly ruled by Pope because they are self-governing but yet part of Catholic Church).

Eastern Orthodox … well that’s mixed. Some say Pope could have all authority there is but he is heretic hence he doesn’t have that authority. Some say that Pope should just be the face of the Church and first among equals with no real authority. First position denies inerrancy of Rome (which was professed in Early Church even by Eastern Fathers, and even during Schism by Georgian Monk who became Eastern Orthodox Saint yet he warned them not to Schism from Pope), while second position denies in effect primacy of Rome as understood historically. Canons of Chalcedon and Sardica show that Pope could re-judge any Church trial from anywhere (even Constantinople). There’s also Pope St. Gregory saying that he can make Eastern synods null and void with a strike of a pen and claiming that “every Bishop” is “subject to Apostolic See”. Of course that was only when Bishops were judged. He says “if there is no fault among [Bishops], let them be equal”.

What I also have problem with is centralization to Rome. Making Pope Patriarch of Patriarchs is not gonna work. However, denying Pope can intervene anytime he sees fit for profit of Eastern Churches is not gonna be historical position either.

 

[ReaderT]

Arguably, by this line of thought, the fact that synods, and even more so, ecumenical councils, can exercise authority over local Churches / bishops, suggests that every bishop of the synod / council is a “second bishop” in the local Church…so I respectfully would reject this particular objection to the papacy.

The whole church coming together to define what it believes - that has been happening since the first Bishops walked the earth in the Book of Acts, so that’s nothing new, and I don’t actually see that as another level of “hierarchy” as it is a tool for clarity. We have no problem with that, but we do have a problem with one Bishop acting with supremacy over all over Bishops, since that either elevates the one Bishop to a sort of “fourth” order of clergy (a super-Bishop?!), or it diminishes the role of all his brother bishops.

every bishop is a vicar of Christ, and not a vicar or deputy of the Pope. Yes, the Pope of Rome, like an ecumenical council or a synod, does exercise an authority over the entire Church

I don’t think it can be both ways - if the Pope has authority over all the Church, then all other Bishops are under him and subservient to him, even in their dioceses.

 

[twf]

I don’t think it can be both ways - if the Pope has authority over all the Church, then all other Bishops are under him and subservient to him, even in their dioceses.

Yes and no. Theologically, its important that their authority doesn’t come from the Bishop of Rome, but rather directly from Christ. Otherwise, we would in fact have a single universal bishop with a bunch of deputies…which is a caricature of the Catholic position, but not the reality.
An ecumenical council isn’t simply a matter of bishops coming together and reaching an agreement. The final decisions of a council are binding on local bishops. If one bishop out of a thousand has a different opinion from the other 999, is he not expected to submit to the “higher authority” of the Council? Certainly that was expected in times past… and I imagine that’s still generally the case at the regional level with Synods in Orthodoxy. So yes there isn’t another bishop who exercises direct authority over a local bishop, but the bishops collectively do… I know its not the same thing, but my point is that a “higher” authority can exist in the Church without usurping the natural rights of local bishops.

 

[ReaderT]

Theologically, its important that their authority doesn’t come from the Bishop of Rome, but rather directly from Christ.

Hierarchically that is the exact case, though - the Pope can appoint and depose any Catholic Bishop, so effectively, authority does come from him!

Without a bishop of Helena Montana, Catholicism will continue to exist. Without a Bishop of Rome, it ceases to exist. He has a completely separate role from other Bishops; he is “more than” a Bishop in effect.

If one bishop out of a thousand has a different opinion from the other 999, is he not expected to submit to the “higher authority” of the Council? Certainly that was expected in times past… and I imagine that’s still generally the case at the regional level with Synods in Orthodoxy. So yes there isn’t another bishop who exercises direct authority over a local bishop, but the bishops collectively do… I know its not the same thing, but my point is that a “higher” authority can exist in the Church without usurping the natural rights of local bishops.

The Ecumenical Councils were always called together when there was a dispute about the essence of our religion (Arianism, Monothelitism, etc.) So the Bishops are not doing anything different than what they always promised to do from their consecration onward: to be faithful stewards and shepherds of our faith, which the Councils defined.

 

[twf]

The Ecumenical Councils were always called together when there was a dispute about the essence of our religion (Arianism, Monothelitism, etc.) So the Bishops are not doing anything different than what they always promised to do from their consecration onward: to be faithful stewards and shepherds of our faith, which the Councils defined.

What about canons? There are numerous canons that were defined by councils of old (sometimes even simple local councils) that are still considered binding by the Orthodox today. Does that not imply that there is an authority higher than the local bishop? Yes, he may dispense from the canons…but generally speaking, his local Church is still bound by them…each local bishop doesn’t just create its own set of canons. I don’t think its really fair to say that there’s no authority higher than that of the local bishop in Orthodoxy…it just comes down to who or what can exercise that higher authority: the Bishop of Rome vs a group of bishops. (And of course in Catholicism both are true…).

Hierarchically that is the exact case, though - the Pope can appoint and depose any Catholic Bishop, so effectively, authority does come from him!

Without a bishop of Helena Montana, Catholicism will continue to exist. Without a Bishop of Rome, it ceases to exist. He has a completely separate role from other Bishops; he is “more than” a Bishop in effect.

His jurisdictional authority is greater than that of other bishops, true, but ontologically he is a bishop, and not something else. When it comes to the sacraments, the divine mysteries, his role is no different than that of any other bishop. His power of governance may be greater, but his power of holy orders is one and the same as that of any bishop.
The Church also can and does exist without a Bishop of Rome…each time the Bishop of Rome dies or abdicates. But you are correct that the Church in Rome will always exist in some form, as a focal point of Catholic unity, as many Fathers attested to.

 

[AlNg]

Without a bishop of Helena Montana, Catholicism will continue to exist. Without a Bishop of Rome, it ceases to exist.

So the Catholic Church did not exist from from November 1268 to September 1271 ? Since the Catholic Church did not exist during that time, how can there be apostolic succession from the time of the apostles?

 

[ralfyman]

Eastern Orthodoxy | Catholic Answers Tract

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I don’t think it can be both ways - if the Pope has authority over all the Church, then all other Bishops are under him and subservient to him, even in their dioceses.

Well if applied to context of hierarchical structure of early Church where Patriarchs exercised real power over other Bishops, that would introduce the same problem. They submit to Pope on universal level, to Patriarchs on local level, to Archbishops on more local level etc… administratively they are different and Pope also exercises Petrine Ministry directly linked to his role of being Bishop of Rome but not superior in ontological nor Sacramental way. Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople can re-judge any case judged anywhere in the Church. He can appoint Bishops outside his territory. Does that not make similar case? Yet that was codified by Chalcedon.

Hierarchically that is the exact case, though - the Pope can appoint and depose any Catholic Bishop, so effectively, authority does come from him!

That is only true for Latin Church and perhaps some Eastern Churches (but not Patriarchates). Fact he can intervene in that does not mean authority comes from him. If Ecumenical Council could judge Patriarchs to be deposed, did that not effectively say authority comes from Ecumenical Council? Yet Bishops aren’t Vicars of the Church but Vicars of Christ. Their authority comes from Christ. Authority of Ecumenical Council also comes from Christ (from Holy Spirit to be more precise), and authority of Pope does come from Christ as well. So there isn’t any contradiction.

Without a bishop of Helena Montana, Catholicism will continue to exist. Without a Bishop of Rome, it ceases to exist. He has a completely separate role from other Bishops; he is “more than” a Bishop in effect.

Not entirely. Episcopate is needed for the Church. Bishop of Rome isn’t necessary for Catholicism… Petrine Ministry is. I can imagine a very theoretical legitimate transition where Rome gets nuked and completely wiped off the face of Earth and Pope runs away to another city and hence that city will hold his successors… but that’s sort of science fiction. Anyway Episcopate is the necessary part. With Episcopate, Petrine Ministry can always be restored as it is every time Pope dies.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Eastern Catholics not accept the primacy

I promise you, they do.
Now, why some EOC don’t understand it, that is a complex question, but, suffice it to say, the history is on Rome’s side on this one. They do kind of accept a primacy, but that it needs to be exercised in union with other bishops. They’ll say first amongst equals, but the fact this Melkite Greek Catholic Church exists says otherwise. Seriously, check out the Melkite church’s history.

 

[sealabeag]

Sorry, yes Eastern Orthodox is what I meant, not Eastern Catholic. They’re both totally foreign to me and I know next to nothing about them hence my mix up lol.

 

[ReaderT]

So the Catholic Church did not exist from from November 1268 to September 1271 ? Since the Catholic Church did not exist during that time, how can there be apostolic succession from the time of the apostles?

AINg you know what I mean . Any long-term removal of the Bishop of Rome means no more Catholicism. By comparison, the Chair of a Wyoming bishop can be vacant for hundreds of years and nobody will bat an eye. They are fundamentally different positions.

His jurisdictional authority is greater than that of other bishops, true, but ontologically he is a bishop, and not something else. When it comes to the sacraments, the divine mysteries, his role is no different than that of any other bishop. His power of governance may be greater, but his power of holy orders is one and the same as that of any bishop.

I think it’s clear that his position is ontologically different than any other role, and is not simply that of a regular Bishop. Like I said to AINg above: remove any other Bishop (say, the Bishop of Wyoming) for 500 years and Catholicism can continue. Remove the office of Bishop of Rome for 500 years and you have no more Catholicism. They are not equal. They are both Episcopal ranks but fundamentally / essentially different.

I think we may have to “Agree to disagree” on this point

Well if applied to context of hierarchical structure of early Church where Patriarchs exercised real power over other Bishops, that would introduce the same problem

Do Patriarchs exercise real power over other Bishops?

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople can re-judge any case judged anywhere in the Church.

I don’t believe that’s true. Ask Moscow

What about canons? There are numerous canons that were defined by councils of old (sometimes even simple local councils) that are still considered binding by the Orthodox today. Does that not imply that there is an authority higher than the local bishop?

Canons are issued by an ecumenical council, true, but like you said, it’s the Bishop’s job to interpret the canons and apply them or dispense them. Some canons will be applied because Orthodoxy and Christianity can’t run correctly without them, so these are essential to the faith.