Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Primacy and Unity in Orthodox Ecclesiology

493 bytes added, 01:11, May 16, 2011
An Orthodox Vision of Primacy
==An Orthodox Vision of Primacy==
In what ways does the Orthodox understanding of primacy differ from the Roman Catholic view? The most comprehensive answer to that question is provided in a new book by Adam DeVille entitled ''Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity.'' Orthodox perspective is rooted in principles drawn from the early canonical tradition, but also from later reflection, especially in the post-war period. It is worth mentioning that even within Orthodoxy the question deals does not admit of one answer: there are a variety of understandings of primacy and unity. Most such understandings deal first and foremost, because of historical considerations, with the legitimate primacy exercised by Rome before the schism.
===The Theological Necessity of Primacy===
Orthodoxy has never accepted Rome's self-supported claims of universal jurisdiction, but has always often, especially in the modern (post-19th century) period rebuffed them. A closer examination, however, reveals the many subtleties of the issue. As Thomas FitzGerald wrote, "Orthodox theologians have not rejected the concept of primacy, but only its development by the Church of Rome."{{ref|11}}.
An understanding of corporate personality is important for any study of primacy. Zizioulas writes: "The idea of the incorporation of the 'many' into the 'one,' or of the 'one' as a representative of the 'many' goes back to a time earlier than Paul."{{ref|12}} More directly, he says, "Bishops are not to be understood as individuals, but as heads of communities."{{ref|13}} This would necessitate a single representative showing forth the unity of the episcopate. There is another important point here: that primacy belongs to a see, not to an individual. As Zizioulas states: "In an ecclesiology of communion, we have not a communion of individuals, but of churches."{{ref|14}}
It is a fact, however, that there has never been a time when the Church did not recognize a certain "order" among first the apostles, then the bishops, and that, in this order, one apostle, St. Peter, and later, one bishop, heading a particular church, occupied the place of a "primate."{{ref|15}}
Zizioulas says that the question of Roman primacy must be approached theologically rather than historically; if primacy was only contingent on historical developments, then it could not be viewed as a necessity for the Church.{{ref|16}} His question is, does Roman Primacy belong to the esse of the Church or is it only for her bene esse? Again there are a number of answers to this, all surveyed in DeVille's book.
===Hierarchy and Concilliarity===
::"In response to the present Roman Catholic understanding of the Petrine Office, Orthodox theologians have not rejected the concept of primacy but only its development by the Church of Rome. Among the Orthodox, there has been an attempt to recognize the various expressions of primatial leadership in the life of the Church, and to place primacy within the framework of concilliarity."{{ref|28}}
Professor Erickson points out that for the some Orthodox, Roman primacy has been understood as a pragmatic, rather than theological, issue, growing out of a principle of accommodation.{{ref|29}} Honor and primacy must be linked to ministry and service, and the Pope must function as head of his see, as one who is among, rather than over, the other bishops. Again, primacy involves more than simply "honor," but is linked to a universal pastoral concern, a "presidency in love." This means leadership, not juridical authority.{{ref|30}}
{{ref|31}}they nevertheless contain principles applicable to universal primacy as well. Zonaras observes:
Notice that the phrase "because it was the imperial city" lends no credence to any argument for primacy based on apostolic foundation.{{ref|39}} Meyendorff also makes the point that there were many cities of apostolic origin in the East, none of which claimed primatial authority. He writes: "Antioch, Corinth, Thessalonica, and many other churches were founded by apostles, but never claimed primacy based on this fact."{{ref|40}} But he is quick to point out that such accommodation is not the only criterion.{{ref|41}}
==What if Roman Primacy were Reinstated?==
8
edits

Navigation menu