J
Jacob4707
Guest
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=11-05-019-f
Interesting comments:
Any thoughts?
Interesting comments:
Orthodox Reservations
The first lecturer, Archbishop Peter (LHullier), of the Orthodox Church in America, elaborated some of the historical and canonical problems still to be resolved relative to the question of any individual primacy in the Church. It took some time, he observed, for the East to become aware that Rome was really serious in its claim of universal jurisdiction over the whole Church. No such claim had been advanced, after all, during the first millennium of Christian history. What was at first perceived in the eleventh century as a mere eccentricity of Hildebrand (Pope Gregory VII) did not pose a canonical obstacle for the Orthodox until the end of the twelfth century, nor did it much preoccupy their canonical thought until the time of the Reformation, centuries later. Unfortunately, the archbishop argued, Orthodox apologists then adopted largely Protestant arguments against the papacy (just as, he added, they not infrequently used Roman Catholic polemics against the Protestants!).
More sound, he contended, and more traditional was the earlier attitude of St. Nicholas Cabasilas, who rejected Roman claims to universal jurisdiction while admitting Romes responsibility to exercise a universal solicitude over the whole Church. Such a canonical distinction had been standard from the earliest centuries, according to Archbishop Peter; jurisdiction (exousia) was the exclusive prerogative of local bishops, while a more general solicitude (phrontis) was proper to the oversight of popes, patriarchs, metropolitans, and other multi-diocesan pastoral ministries.
Archbishop Peter went on to indicate problems with some standard expressions that Orthodox have adopted to speak of their own position relative to the Roman primacy. He observed, for instance, that their favorite phrase first among equals is a formulation not completely coherent, while Orthodox insistence on maintaining the traditional Pentarchy (the five ancient patriarchates established by ecumenical councils: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) is both artificial and at odds with Orthodoxys own practice of the autocephaly (regional independence) of churches along national lines. In general, he concluded, the Orthodox must work harder to clarify their own thinking about primacyto be able to tell Rome what they do mean by it, not simply what they do not mean.
He seems to be saying a couple things: 1) The Orthodox term "first among equals" when speaking of the Bishop of Rome needs some clarification; 2) Maintaining the status of the 5 ancient patriarchates is contrary to autocephaly.Any thoughts?
