A. Orthodox "pain" in the face of papal claims of "universal jurisdiction" and "infallibility"

(a) Q & A: The Orthodox Church teaches that universal jurisdiction is held by our Lord, Jesus Christ, alone. . . . That is why there is no hierarch in Orthodoxy who can justly claim universal jurisdiction or that his proclamations - ex cathedra or otherwise should be considered to be infallible.

(b) The Eastern Orthodox Churches . . . accept the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, and therefore accept (to varying extents) the papal claims to primacy of honour. However, these churches generally deny that the pope is the successor to St. Peter in any unique sense not true of any other bishop, or that St. Peter was ever [historically] bishop of Rome at all. The Orthodox Church rejects the papal claims that there is a vicar of Christ, infallible head of the Christian Church. It would, if union occurred with the Roman Catholic Church, consider the Pope as the first Bishop among equals. The other "equals" being the primates of the Orthodox Churches around the world.

(c) The Ecumenical Councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and attended by all Bishops, is the highest legislative body on matters of faith and morals. Decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are considered infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit, only if consistent with the Apostolic Faith and accepted by the entire Church.

B. Orthodox responses to Vatican II

** Some surprised by this announcement [to convoke a council] because it was believed that with the decisions of 1870 [Vatican I] the idea of councils was substituted by the infallible ministry of the bishop of Rome (E. Clapsis, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 35/3:221). . . .

** Orthodox theologians were particularly impressed by the [Roman Catholic] discovery of the local church as truly and fully the manifestation of the church of God (224). . . . and that local bishops should not be seen as delegates or vicars of the bishop of Rome (225). . . and that bishops constitute a college which is in communion with the bishop of Rome (225).

** Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), "the first Pope to take up ecumenism," set aside the customary use of "schismatics" and "heretics" in favor of "dissidents" and "separated ones." John XXIII, went further, by using the language of "sister churches" and openly admitting that the papacy was a "stumbling block" to unity. Vatican II, in its turn, went overboard to take steps toward a possible reunion:

(a) Similarly it must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively-in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law. Nor must we undervalue the fact that it was the ecumenical councils held in the East that defined the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, on the Trinity, on the Word of God Who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. To preserve this faith these Churches have suffered and still suffer much (Decree on Ecumenism 1964:14).

(b) These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged (Ibid.).

(c) Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church's unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity (Decree on Ecumenism 1964:16).

Rome must not require more of a primacy doctrine from the East than was formulated and experienced in the first millenium (Ratzinger, Die Okumenische Situation [1982], p. 209).

(d) What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the Church must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine. In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting (Decree on Ecumenism 1964:17).

(e) The Council commends to the shepherds and faithful of the Catholic Church to develop closer relations with those who are no longer living in the East but are far from home, so that friendly collaboration with them may increase, in the spirit of love, to the exclusion of all feeling of rivalry or strife. If this cause is wholeheartedly promoted, the Council hopes that the barrier dividing the Eastern Church and Western Church will be removed, and that at last there may be but the one dwelling, firmly established on Christ Jesus, the cornerstone, who will make both one (Decree on Ecumenism 1964:18).

C. Orthodox Objections and Perspectives

1. The Latin Patriarch has repeatedly ignored the ancient and time?honored ecclesial limits set for the pastoral jurisdiction of each bishop

2. "It is imperative from an Orthodox perspective to study the primacy of Rome in the context of the primacies of the patriarchs of the East" (Clapsis, 1987:124)

3. Principal of unity among equal churches: a trinitarian model

The Church is the communion of believers living in Jesus Christ with the Father. It has its origins and prototype in the Trinity in which there is both distinction of persons and unity based on love, not subordination (International Commission, 1974).

4. Guidance = ancient canons

Let the bishop of Constantinople have the priorities of honor after the bishop of Rome, because of its being the New Rome (Council of Constantinople, canon 3).

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent. . . . but neither let him [who is the first] do anything without the consent of all; for so their will be unanimity . . . (Apostolic Canon 34).

5. No canon of the patristic period gives the bishop of Rome the right to convoke, to preside over, or to approve the decrees of ecumenical councils. Thus, in effect, union with the Orthodox would necessitate that the "ecumenical councils" of the last thousand years be reclassified as "Western" and "regional." No canon of the partristic period gives the bishop of Rome the right to declare as binding upon all "new" dogmas (such as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption).

6. Contrary to tradition, the 1983 Code of Canon Law in the Roman Church continues to affirm supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power to the bishop of Rome.

7. The NT shows Peter functioning consultatively and collegially. If the Roman bishop would follow in the footsteps of his predecessor. . . .

Appendix I: Will the papacy always be unacceptable to Protestants?

Not necessarily. For Fundamentalists such as Jimmy Swaggart who are driven to uncritically repeat the Protestant condemnations of the sixteenth century, there will undoubtedly never be any acceptable role or function for the papacy in the church of Jesus Christ. For many discerning Protestants, however, most of the objections to the papacy during the time of the Reformation no longer apply. Within the context of the official Lutheran-Catholic dialogues here in the United States, for example, the Lutheran participants acknowledged that "our Lutheran forefathers rejected the late medieval papacy precisely because in their judgment it was obstructing the gospel" (Empie: 32). Now, however, that the bishops of Vatican II have asserted that "this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant" (Dei Verbum sec. 10) and that the excessive notions of papacy promoted after Vatican I have been moderated, the Lutheran participants have shown a remarkable willingness to reconsider whether some future recognition of the papacy might not be possible:

Lutherans increasingly recognize the need for a Ministry serving the unity of the church universal. They acknowledge that, for the exercise of this Ministry, institutions which are rooted in history should be seriously considered. . . . Lutherans can also grant the beneficial role of the papacy at various periods of history. Believing in God's sovereign freedom, they cannot deny that God may show again in the future that the papacy is his gracious gift to his people. . . . The one thing necessary, from the Lutheran point of view, is that papal primacy be so structured and interpreted that it clearly serve the gospel and the unity of the church of Christ and that its exercise of power not subvert Christian freedom (Empie: 21).

Apprendix II: An Agreed Statement on Conciliarity and Primacy in the Church Between Orthodox and Roman Catholic Representatives (1990)

1. The local church is "a full and sacramental realization of the one Church of Christ, provided it remains within the full apostolic faith and is bound in love and mutual recognition to the other communities who profess that faith" (Agreed Statement, sec. 4).

2. Primacy and synods are "mutually dependent and mutually limiting" (Agreed Statement, sec. 6)

3. "The Orthodox do accept the notion of universal primacy, speaking of it as a 'primacy of honor' accorded to a primus inter pares; at the same time, they cannot accept an understanding of the role of the primate which excludes the collegiality and interdependence of the whole body of bishops" (Agree Statement, sec. 7). Thus the Orthodox continue to reject Vatican I yet see hope in the "new forms of synodal leadership" following Vatican II.

Assignment: (2) What steps have been taken by my denomination (or the WCC) toward addressing/healing ONE of these three wounds?

1. Person-to-person inquiry

2. Library search

3. Internet search