Analysis of the joint Catholic-Orthodox document on the role of the pope in the 1st millennium
I mentioned in a previous blog post that a document prepared by a joint Catholic-Orthodox committee in 2008 was leaked to the public recently. The document dealt with the role of the bishop of Rome during the first millennium; I have now read it more carefully and I’d like to give an analysis of it here. I found it fascinating and insightful, and it even contained two surprises: one that might upset Orthodox polemicists and one that could potentially disturb their Catholic counterparts.
But before I dig in, I’d like to make clear the status of this document. It was prepared by the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in preparation for the official meeting between Catholic and Orthodox leaders in Cyprus in late 2009. It has no official standing and might even have been scrapped completely by the hierarchs at the Cyprus meeting, but I do think it is instructive as to the common view of important Catholic and Orthodox figures. Now on to the document itself.
The purpose of the document is to study the role of the bishop of Rome during the first millennium. The reason for this in the context of ecumenical relations is clear: the role of the papacy is the key stumbling block to reunion: since the first millennium Church was a united Church, it is important to see how the papacy was practiced and understood in that time frame as a possible indication of how it can be practiced and understood in a future, united Church. Obviously, reunion would not magically occur even if Catholics and Orthodox were in complete agreement as to the role of the papacy for the first 1,000 years of Christianity, but such an agreement would go a long way towards reunion.
The document breaks down its study into four categories:
- The Church of Rome, prima sedes (”first see”)
- The bishop of Rome as successor of Peter
- The role of the bishop of Rome at times of crisis in the ecclesial communion
- The influence of non-theological factors
Each of these points are important, as they all were factors in how both the East and the West came to understand the role of the bishop of Rome in the life of the Church. Let’s take a look at each one individually:
The Church of Rome, prima sedes
One of the first things the document notes is something that might surprise your average Catholic: for the early Church, the primacy of Rome came not from Peter being its first bishop, but from the dual martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome. By shedding their blood in Rome, they became the true “founders” of the Church in Rome, even though Christians lived in the Imperial Capital before either of the two apostles got there. This does not mean that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, but it shows two vital points sometimes forgotten by Catholic apologists: the importance of martyrdom in Roman claims and the role of Paul in the primacy of Rome. As we will see below, it was a later development that resulted in all papal claims being tied to Peter’s role as the first bishop of Rome.
Another important point from this section is the priority of the local church over the bishop. It is the church of Rome that has primacy, and the pope derives his authority from his position as the bishop of that local church. As the document states, “Both East and West have continued to maintain that the primacy of the see precedes the primacy of its bishop and is the source of the latter” (paragraph 9). This just makes sense, as, for instance, Cardinal Ratzinger had no special authority until he was made bishop of Rome. It is the office which has primacy, not the person.
This section also contains the first “surprise,” and it is one that I don’t think will please hard-line Orthodox polemicists. In a discussion of the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, the document notes, “Although in the first millennium Ecumenical Councils were called by the emperor, no council could be recognised as ecumenical without it having the consent of the pope, given either beforehand or afterwards” (paragraph 12, emphasis added). I think that this is a significant statement, having encountered many Orthodox apologists who would like to remove the necessity of papal approval completely from a council’s requirements for consideration as “ecumenical”. Later (in paragraph 27) the document does list a number of other factors needed in order to make a council truly “ecumenical,” but I thought the explicit recognition of the need for papal consent was quite a concession on the Orthodox side.
The bishop of Rome as successor of Peter
In this section, the document relates the history of divergent East-West views of the Pope as the successor of Peter. Standard Catholic theology today states unequivocally that the reason the Pope has the authority he does is because he is the successor of St. Peter. However, as the document notes, this understanding took time to develop, and it was never really accepted in the East. In fact, I would say that this divergent development was the first real beginning of the separation between East and West. Beginning in the third century, while Eastern Christians viewed the importance of the bishop of Rome as deriving from Rome’s political importance, Western Christians tended to base that authority on apostolic – and specifically Petrine – grounds.
In this context the document reviews Pope Leo’s role at the Council of Chalcedon. At that council, Leo’s “Tome” was read in defense of the orthodox Faith, and afterwards the bishops cried out, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” In most apologetical contexts, Catholics have used this statement to prove that the Pope is the successor to the person of Peter and therefore has his authority, whereas Orthodox Christians have either downplayed the statement or noted that it was simply a recognition that Leo had given voice to the faith of Peter. It is here that I think the document has the second surprise, this time one that might not be acceptable to many hard-line Catholic polemicists. It comes down conclusively on the Orthodox interpretation of these events: “In the early Church, both East and West, it was the succession of Peter’s faith that was of paramount importance” (paragraph 18). I know many Catholics who would challenge that claim.
But importantly, this section concludes with what I would say is the main theme of the document: that unity was preserved in the first millennium in spite of different understandings of the role of the Pope. “It is notable that these rather different understandings of the position of the bishop of Rome and the relationship of the major sees in West and East, respectively, based on quite different biblical, theological and canonical interpretations, co-existed for several centuries until the end of the first millennium, without causing a break of communion” (paragraph 22).
The role of the bishop of Rome at times of crisis in the ecclesial communion
There is little that is controversial in this third section. Mostly it notes that many appeals were made to Rome during the various crises of the first millennium. There is general agreement between both Western Christians and Eastern Christians that the Pope has a role as a court of appeal when a controversy extends outside the border of a diocese or patriarchy, but less agreement as to the exact nature of his authority in those situations. After recounting examples of these appeals, the document simply concludes this section, “It can be affirmed that in the first millennium the bishop of Rome, as first (protos) among the patriarchs, exercised a role of coordination and stability in questions relating to faith and communion, in fidelity to the tradition and with respect for conciliarity” (paragraph 28).
The influence of non–theological factors
The final section has a “tacked-on” feeling, as it simply lists, without comment, a number of non-theological factors in the divergent views of the role of the papacy. These factors are very important, but I imagine that the Committee felt that it would take them too far afield to explore them in any depth.
The document concludes by emphasizing its overall theme: unity existed even during times of widely divergent views on the papacy. As the document states, “Distinct divergences of understanding and interpretation did not prevent East and West from remaining in communion” (paragraph 32). It implies, “we didn’t really agree back then and we were still in communion, so what is stopping us now?”
Although the findings of the Committee are unofficial and hold no authoritative ecclesial weight, I do think this is an important document. I hope that it can set the tone in every level of discussions between Catholics and Orthodox. For too long apologists have mined the first millennium looking for “proofs” of their position, often at the expense of the subtleties of what really happened. The fact is that Eastern and Western Christians have never fully agreed on the role of the Pope within the Church, so to think we will come to complete agreement in the future is unrealistic. What we can hope for, however, is a level of agreement that, while appreciating legitimate differences, is compatible with full communion between the two great Churches.
Sts. Peter and Paul, pray for us!
I don’t think it’s possible anymore to have communion with different views of the papacy since papal infallibility was declared a dogma. Or am I mistaken?
Hi Eric. Two points.
First, it is popular but inaccurate to speak of the “undivided church of the first millennium.” That’s important because traditional Anglicans especially like to present such a church as the unified communion from which Rome departed when the papal claims were asserted consistently after the turn of the millennium. Now as the document recognizes, East and West never had a unitary view of the role of the papacy. Communion was maintained as much in spite of as because of the Western view. But still more important, the fact is that two of the then-four patriarchates went into schism in the 5th century: Antioch after Ephesus, Alexandria after Chalcedon. How the Orthodox can square this with a “consensual” model of conciliar ecumenicity has always been a mystery to me. They’ve dealt with it simply by appointing their own patriarchs for those ancient sees.
Second, contemporary Orthodox often speak of Vatican I as “the deal breaker.” Only it isn’t. If appeals to Rome in time of crisis of communion, which was common in the first millennium, is supposed to settle anything, then Rome has to be the last court of appeal. But if Rome could err doctrinally in that capacity, as determined by some standard she doesn’t recognize as binding, then she would not be the court of last appeal. Papal infallibility is thus necessary if Rome is to have the role that the Orthodox parties to the document are willing to grant.
Best,
Mike
ES: “The fact is that Eastern and Western Christians have never fully agreed on the role of the Pope within the Church, so to think we will come to complete agreement in the future is unrealistic. What we can hope for, however, is a level of agreement that, while appreciating legitimate differences, is compatible with full communion between the two great Churches.”
We should distinguish between a pullback from ultramontanism in practice, and a renunciation of “papal claims” in theory.
The first is desirable and indicated by Vatican II; it is, I think, what John Paul II meant by a “new situation” in Ut Unum Sint. The second, however, would be a defection from unchangeable Catholic dogma. We are simply not free to accommodate the separated Eastern churches by this means.
I am Eastern Catholic. Sadly, many people in my church seem reluctant and deeply ambivalent vis a vis the (often poorly-understood) “papal claims”; many eventually leave for Eastern Orthodoxy– which they claim is a more “honest” option for one who doubts what Vatican I teaches. I suppose that is true in a way, though many of them do not seem to understand the teachings they supposedly reject. (As such, one can hope they are acting out of ignorance.)
At some point in all of this “dialogue,” it will have to be made clear that Vatican I is not negotiable. It says what it says. It does not mandate ultramontanism or forbid a new situation of the Pope in regard to other local and particular churches. But its essential teaching must be accepted for a true union of churches to take place.
I’m not holding my breath, particularly as the Catholic hierarchy wishes to address practically every other possible question instead, and act almost ashamed of what she nevertheless teaches authoritatively. We should have begun where we left off –with the Filioque, at the Council of Florence– and then taken up the dogmas of Vatican I directly. “Si, si; no, no.”
My mother was Roman Catholic, my father Methodist, and compromised on low-church Episcopalian. My 4 siblings are vaguely all over the map Protestant. After a journey that led me through every major world religion, and an odd one or two, I converted to Roman Catholicism at 24. After another long journey through the theological treasures of the Church, I discovered there was more than one — 23, in fact – and happily journeyed through them.
If I hadn’t discovered the Eastern Catholic Churches before I discovered Eastern Orthodoxy, I’d be in a world of hurt by now, torn in two. I have found my spiritual home in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, but I feel as if I straddle a crevasse that shouldn’t exist.
After experiencing among my family and friends almost every conceivable form of division, compromise and conversion from and to any and every religion, this is what I believe to the depths of my soul:
1)That anything true, good and beautiful in any religion ultimately points to the reality of God as revealed by Christ, because He Is the ultimate Source of all that is.
2) That the Churches who speak in His name must be “Catholic in Unity and Orthodox in Faith”. If we can’t breathe with both lungs, our wheezing voice will be hard to hear.
Pray that we be One, as Our Father is One.
Michael,
A good point about the “undivided church” in the 1st millennium. It would be more accurate to say that the Western Church and the part of the Eastern Church which became today’s Orthodox Church were (largely) in communion during that time frame, even though they had divergent views on many matters, including the papacy.
Just to play devil’s advocate regarding papal infallibility (something which I of course accept), many in the East would say that infallibility goes beyond what is necessary for a court of final appeal. Firstly, in many cases the appeal in question might not be a doctrinal matter, and thus infallibility is a moot point. Secondarily, another problem (in Eastern eyes) with papal infallibility is what happens when the pope exercises it when no appeal has been made? In the case of both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, there was no crisis which had to be solved, so many would say that the Pope in those instances went beyond just being a court of final appeal as he was in the 1st millennium.
Eric, I agree that in a re-united Church, it would be bad form for a pope to define a dogma unilaterally, unless an ecumenical council could not agree on an important but highly controversial formulation of doctrine. But I really do believe the East takes their objections too far. The papacy simply cannot act effectively as a court of last appeal in matters of doctrine if its decisions, when meant to bind the whole Church, were thought to be fallible. In that case, they would always be subject to review, and thus not beyond some sort of appeal, if only to to a future pope. Such an office would settle nothing.
The only importance this document has is that it purports to be a joint declaration, given that the document does little more than re-state the traditional Orthodox position (with a few minor concessions). That is, its importance is that it gives the impression that the Roman Church agrees, in general, with the Eastern position. The Orthodox Church has always grudgingly admitted that the Bishop of Rome is first among bishops and that the Roman See holds first place.
The interpretations the committee gives to some of its sources (e.g., to the words of Ireneaus, Pope Gelasius, the Council of Chalcedon, and Cyprian, who asked in one passage “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?”) are highly questionable, to put it mildly.
The Orthodox Church, Michael, seems to have had no problem in the past with treating a falliable source as the de facto arbiter of last resort. Eastern bishops often appealed to the Emperor to decide matters when a decision from Rome was either unwanted or, practially speaking, unavailable. If an Orthodox representative did see the force of your argument, then I suspect he would avoid your conclusion by maintaining that an oecumenical council would have to be the “court of last appeals” in cases that were important enough to warrant something approaching infallibility. The Orthodox would only consider such as council as this, if anything, potentially infallible.
Peregrinus – I heartily disagree with your assertion that “The Orthodox Church has always grudgingly admitted that the Bishop of Rome is first among bishops and that the Roman See holds first place.” Few Catholics take the Pope of Rome as seriously as most Orthodox do, for good or ill. Further, Orthodox NEVER sought to install a new Pope after the schism, as one would think they might have done a la Alexandria and Antioch.
Michael – Interesting that in the end Newman alone prevails for you – “It is so because it must be so.” to paraphrase his letter to Gladstone.
[...] recently leaked draft from the Committee about the papacy in the first millennium, which I analyzed here. He was very disappointed that the draft was leaked and felt strongly that the person who leaked [...]
Pingback by An insider’s view of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue « Divine Life – A Blog by Eric Sammons — February 17, 2010 @ 9:29 amI wanted to point out the fact that the document makes reference the so-called Eighth Ecumenical Synod of Constantinople in 879. This, in my mind, seems to be a key point in this whole issue especially in lieu of what Michael brought up about the court of appeals and infallibility.
During the Photian Schism, in the Council of 869, Pope Nicholas I deposed St. Photius, but in the council of 879, Pope John VIII reinstated St. Photius and also anathematized all who changed the creed in any way, whether by insertion or deletion.
The council of 879 was initially accepted in the west, and was copied such by Medeival canonists until (I believe) the 12th century, (source: Christopher M. Belitto, The General Councils, p. 34)
But the canonists, apparently to elevate the view of the Pope, later adopted the council of 869 instead as “the eighth” because Pope Nicholas I, who was very influenced by the Frankish ambitions according to Fr. John S. Romanides (http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm#14), used more grandoise language in asserting his right to depose St. Photius.
There is a great scholarly work about this issue, entitled The Photian Schism by Francis Dvornik, that I haven’t read but am hoping to some time soon.
Anyway, I don’t know if this was already on your minds, but I just wanted to point that out in case you hadn’t thought of it. It is generally forgotten that there are technically (and even according to the Ravenna agreement) 8 ecumenical Councils, even though this eighth seems to be less about doctrine and more about Canons and pastoring. I think this is very important to this discussion we are having.
Also, could someone help me understand how Papal infallibility is feasible considering the anathematizing of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680?
thank you!
Timothy +a sinner
Pope Honorius was anathematised for a theological opinion that was never proclaimed ex cathedra and therefore does not meet the requirements of papal infallibility. That opinion was expressed in a private letter to another bishop regarding Christological questions, but was never promulgated as official dogma. Therefore, while the opinions of Honorius, or indeed Honorius as an individual, were condemned, the see and office of Saint Peter remains untainted. That at least is my understanding of the Honorius controversy, but I certainly welcome correction.