Orthodox polemics
against the primacy of Rome depend, broadly speaking, on Roman Catholic
theology. This is not surprising, since the actual aim of Orthodox theology
is to refute arguments put forth in favor of Roman primacy. Now the Catholic
doctrine of Papal primacy is founded on their doctrine of the primacy of the
Apostle Peter: and therefore Orthodox theologians concentrate their
attention on this subject. Exegesis of New Testament texts on the position
of Peter results in a discussion between Orthodox and Catholic theologians.
Meanwhile, a similar discussion has arisen concerning the oldest Patristic
evidence about the Church of Rome. Rome's role in history is also under
dispute, and so far no agreement has been reached on the matter. No one
denies, today, that she has held a leading position, but we have still to
ask what position it was and what was its nature. In other words, we started
discussing the Papal primacy of Rome before we raised the question: what is
primacy itself? Can Papal primacy - whether of Rome or of any other church -
really exist in the Church?
This is the really
important question, and the answer, whether positive or negative, will help
us to work out our own views of the Church of Rome. If we are to solve the
problem of primacy within the Church, our starting point must be
ecclesiology; i.e., we must ask, does the doctrine of the Church contain the
idea of primacy (in its present or any other form), or exclude it
altogether? This method can be used to solve problems of exegesis and of
history too; it is really the most natural approach, for the problem of
primacy is inherent in the doctrine of the Church. We can thus pose the
problem of primacy in general, for Orthodox and Catholics alike. But we must
not think of such a method as involving any renunciation (even provisional)
of our confessional allegiances. That sort of thing would only be possible
for a bad Orthodox or a bad Catholic. As we study the problem of primacy in
general, and especially the primacy of Rome, we must not be ruled by
polemical motives: the problem is to be solved to satisfy ourselves and
Orthodox theology. The solution of the problem is urgent, since Orthodox
theology has not yet built up any systematic doctrine on Church government.
The Orthodox Church
is absolutely right in refusing to recognize the contemporary doctrine that
primacy belongs to the Bishop of Rome; however, this Tightness does not lie
in the numerous arguments that have been brought against primacy, but in the
very fact of non-recognition. The arguments against primacy offered by
Orthodox school-theology seem to suffer from some lack of clarity and
finish. This can be explained by the fact that eucharistic ecclesiology is
still alive, deep down, in the Orthodox soul; but Orthodoxy on the surface
is under the shadow of universal ecclesiology, and also of contemporary
ecclesiastical organization. The attribute of "catholicity," which (in
eucharistic ecclesiology) belongs to the episcopal church, has now been
transferred to the auto-cephalous church - a unit, in fact, half political
and half ecclesiastical. Naturally, the episcopal church loses its
catholicity and becomes a part of the autocephalous church. To this latter,
alone, modern Orthodox theology ascribes the ability to be free and
autonomous. Orthodox theology indeed rejects the idea of primacy on the
universal scale, but it recognizes a partial primacy at the center of every
autocephalous church, a primacy belonging to the head of that church. We are
concerned here with primacy, not priority, for priority implies that every
local church has fullness of ecclesiastical esse.
The autocephalous
churches, meanwhile, have become divided and separated, for the idea of a
single directive has faded since the fall of Byzantium. Ever since the
second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople has been trying to bring off a
pan-Orthodox primacy, but all her attempts have failed. It would be most
unwise to talk of an "Eastern Pope," as though the Patriarch of
Constantinople set himself to copy the Bishop of Rome, and wrong whether we
take an ideological or a historical view. But no doubt various inner motives
did impel the Patriarch of Constantinople to follow along the road to
primacy, within the pattern of a universal ecclesiology. In modern times,
the unity of the Orthodox Church is becoming a sort of abstract ideal, with
no means of manifesting itself in the real life of the Church. Anyone who
regards the pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical Council as an organ manifesting the
Church's unity is just putting things in the wrong order, consequences
before foundation. In fact, the pan-Orthodox Council should be the
consequence of Orthodox Church unity; it should be guided by a church or a
bishop; and it cannot be a foundation for this unity.
In the long course
of the struggle against the Roman Catholic position about the primacy of
Rome, Orthodox doctrine has lost the very notion of priority. And the
Catholic Church lost sight of the idea even earlier, during its struggle for
a single directive in the Church, which it has now transformed into Papal
primacy. If we take the respective positions ol the two churches as they
stand, there is no hope of resolving the question of primacy. We can only
accept the tragedy, but with our eyes open, and without that romantic
sentimentality which only adds bitterness to the everlasting discussion
about primacy. "The unity of the faith in the bond of peace." Unity of faith
still reigns within the Orthodox Church, but without union in love; and
neither exists between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. Why is
this? Surely because the mind of the Church has become unaware that the
Church of God should be directed by a local church, one church among all the
others. They all possess catholicity; but priority of authority, by giving
witness about events in the Church's life, is something that belongs only to
the church "which presides in love."
Written By Nicholas Afanassieff, From: The Primacy of Peter, John Meyendorff
- Editor, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY, 1992
