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

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Do Patriarchs exercise real power over other Bishops?

Historically they did. They don’t in current Eastern Orthodox Church but they do in Oriental Orthodoxy

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

Well just read canons of Chalcedon

 

[JSRG]

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.

I’ve never seen an Eastern Orthodox make that claim; in fact, that seems completely at odds with Eastern Orthodoxy thought. What you’re describing seems more akin to sedevacantism, the belief that popes do possess sweeping jurisdiction over the church, but past a certain point (usually identified as after the pontificate of Pius XII or John XXIII, though some sedevacantists put it earlier) none of the “popes” are real popes and that the Catholic Church has been without an actual pope that whole time.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Just going to put this here:

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/books/Solovyev--Russia_Universal_Church.pdf

This is Soloviev’s position in which he argues most eloquently for the papacy as a Divine institution to safeguard Christian unity. His treatment of Chalcedon and the authority of St Leo the Great is well worth the read.

Just FYI the first two parts are relevant to our conversation, while the third part delves into trinitarian monarchy as the model for church governance. Soloviev also discusses his particular brand of Sophiology, which was censured by the ROCOR and MP for deviating into goddess worship heresy–just a word of caution to the reader if you get that far.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I’ve never seen an Eastern Orthodox make that claim; in fact, that seems completely at odds with Eastern Orthodoxy thought.

Yes, it is belief akin to Sedevacantism which makes this very interesting.

For example, an EO saint, Symeon of Thessalonica from a few decades before Council of Florence, wrote the following (as quoted in Meyendorff, et al’s Primacy of Peter):

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff…Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself."

 

[dochawk]

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.”

oh, absolutely.

I was specifically responding to the stament that

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 actual break took centuries to crystallize.

As far as I know Church of Rome has never excommunicated East at large and only excommunicated those who stood with Patriarch Michael Cerularius

but that is how churches come in and out of communion with one another–the communion of their patriarchs.

So do Eastern Orthodox nominally but they deny implications.

“disagree” would be a better word than “deny” . . .

 

[twf]

We can agree to disagree as you said.
While I do certainly accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on papal primacy, I also strongly believe that the head should do nothing without the body and the body nothing without the head…when it comes to the College of Bishops.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

but that is how churches come in and out of communion with one another–the communion of their patriarchs.

Actually that excommunication was invalid and even then there was valid reason for it. Then again Church of Constantinople is not what constitutes Eastern Orthodoxy.

“disagree” would be a better word than “deny” . . .

What’s the difference? There are certain implications to primacy historically. Those are more than nominal.

 

[dochawk]

Actually that excommunication was invalid and even then there was valid reason for it.

I’ve said the first part at least once here in the last week, while the second claim is, at best, debatable.

Then again Church of Constantinople is not what constitutes Eastern Orthodoxy.

and oranges are round. What is the point?

What’s the difference? There are certain implications to primacy historically. Those are more than nominal.

What’s the difference?

“deny” has more of a judgment that the other is wrong. You can’t really have a discussion with the starting point that the other side is Wong, and accept anyone who doesn’t agree with you a priori to accept such language.

There are certain implications to primacy historically.

Oh, absolutely. And the Orthodox don’t deny those.

Were Rome willing to discuss on those grounds, it could rapidly be in communion with all except the ROC (and even possibly with them).

Yes, there are a church father or two who wrote things that support Rome’s party line, but that was not the praxis of the first millennium, nor were those positions even close to universal.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

What is the point?

That Rome did not excommunicate East at large ever. That even if Rome would somehow excommunicate Constantinople it wouldn’t quite make Schism between East and West if breaks of communion aren’t transitive as in Orthodox world (which kinda fits I guess since others broke communion later).

while the second claim is, at best, debatable.

My claim is that throwing Latin Eucharist in streets and refusing to acknowledge Legates is valid grounds for excommunication. Denying procession of Holy Spirit through the Son is at least semi-heretical (nothing about Filioque, I mean Photian theology vs Church Fathers theology). Denying validity of Latin Sacraments doesn’t help either.

Yes, there are a church father or two who wrote things that support Rome’s party line, but that was not the praxis of the first millennium, nor were those positions even close to universal.

If that is supposed to not deny Papal Infallibility and right of Pope to intervene but just centralization to Rome, then by all means.

 

[AlNg]

Denying validity of Latin Sacraments doesn’t help either.

Roman Catholics deny validity of High Anglican Sacraments, so how does that help to mend relations between Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Roman Catholics deny validity of High Anglican Sacraments, so how does that help to mend relations between Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics?

It doesn’t. It’s not supposed to.

That’s like saying “Protestants and Orthodox don’t submit to the Pope. How is that helping to mend relations between them and Catholics?”

 

[AlNg]

Denying validity of Latin Sacraments doesn’t help either.

It’s not supposed to.

That is what I thought.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

That is what I thought.

Exactly. There is no fostering unity in that. Whoever believed that also believed Latin Church to be in Schism and/or Heresy (which again by itself makes communion with Latin Church actually hypocritical).

 

[AlNg]

Whoever believed that also believed Latin Church to be in Schism and/or Heresy (which again by itself makes communion with Latin Church actually hypocritical).

It doesn’t look too good for reunion of EO and RC.