Primacy : An Oriental Orthodox Perspective by Fr. Dr. K. M. George

October 2014

Introduction

It is hardly a matter of dispute that some form of primacy is essential to the sacramental and organizational life of the Church, from presiding over a local Eucharistic celebration to the convening of a synod -universal, regional or local.

The first Synod was held in Jerusalem and it was presided over by James, apostle and first bishop of Jerusalem. However, it did not probably anticipate or set rules for any historically later need when all the local churches of the whole world might gather together for some celebration or decision making. If at all we make out any principles from the Jerusalem synod, they are inter alia: a) the consensus of the whole church in consultation with the Holy Spirit in making decisions, and b) the presence of a president or the first one (primus) to chair the meeting and to sum up and announce its results. Later debates on primacy still continue to divide the Church of Christ, and we do not see that the unifying model of Jerusalem is followed in most cases.

The good order (eutaxia) in the Church has always been important. Question of Primacy has to be seen as part of this order in view of peace, forgiveness and reconciliation in the Body of Christ.The three-fold ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon witnessed to from the first century of Christian Church contains the essential structure of the sacramental and administrative ordering of the Church of God in a particular locality. In our context here primacy relates to the position of the bishop in particular.

Primacy and Power.

The question of primacy in ecclesiastical circles often seems to be viewed from an inappropriate vantage point. It is usually from our day to day experience of worldly power and authority that we ask the question: who is first? The assumption could be that first-ness or primacy brings with it some higher authority, prestige, special privileges, wealth, power, or in short the ability to exercise lordship over others.

In politics and economics, in administration and social relations and in all aspects of life from the family to the nation and beyond the nature of primacy assumes a pyramidal hierarchy in terms of power and authority. Many people take it as the natural created order since the matter of “ruling the roost” is congenitally present in all species. The human species, however, is different, since it is not governed solely by the instinct , but can transform or transcend , abuse or abdicate some of its instinctual drives unlike other species. So we see some people in positions of primacy making good use of it for the benefit of all; some others abuse it for their own private interests, and still others transcend or altruistically abdicate power in search of the Common Good or some form of spiritual goals.

Model of Christ and the Apostles

What applies to the natural man or the ordinary human being, as St Paul qualifies it, is not the norm for the spiritual persons, for those who follow Christ ( 1 Corinthians 3:1-4). In the Gospels and the other NT writings there is constant warning against a certain type of Philoprotos or one who intensely and inordinately desires to be the first (primus) as in the case of Diotrephes (III John 1:9). We are constantly exhorted to transform or lay down power on the model of Christ our Lord and Saviour.

The question who is the first or the greatest was already a matter of occasional dispute among the Twelve ( Luke 9:46 ). Jesus did two things to teach them and to correct their perception of primacy. He picked up a child and told them that they should turn and become like children in order to be qualified to enter the kingdom of God or the radically new order of life he inaugurated and to which he wanted to initiate them (Matthew 21:15). Then on the eve of his crucifixion while they sat for the last supper Jesus got up from his Guru’s seat and washed the feet of his disciples as a servant or slave would do. (John 13:1-17). In both cases he taught them through objective lessons that the idea of primacy among his followers was fundamentally different from the worldly understanding of being the first in a visible hierarchical order. In fact, the hierarchy is subverted in a dramatic way. The most powerless and the most vulnerable are vindicated in the images of the child and the servant/slave, not simply in concepts but in real experience.

These examples are in keeping with the vision of the kingdom of God . They illustrate the whole idea of kenosis, the self-emptying of God for our salvation. It is in line with the Nazareth manifesto of Jesus where the mission of the Messiah , the Anointed One , is to announce good tidings to the poor, give sight to the blind, release the captives, liberate the oppressed and to announce the age of God’s grace to all. In the projected vision of the final judgment, the criteria are defined uniquely on the basis of whether we have fed the hungry, clothed the poor, comforted the sick, visited the prisoners and so on. There is no mention of any criterion privileging the hierarchical order or referring to the canonical rules governing positions of authority.

We may briefly look at the issue of primacy in our Christian tradition in the light of the above insights from the life and teachings of Jesus and his Apostles.

Claims of Petrine Primacy and the Orthodox Tradition.

1.In fact, a major spark for the unending debates in the Church regarding primacy was the special claim of the Church of Rome regarding the primcay of Peter since the 5th century, paricularly in the second millennium.

The New Testament gives ample evidence for the prominent role Peter played in the community of the apostles and in the early church. Peter was the leader of the first disciples of Jesus. There is, however, no clue as to why Jesus chose Peter as the leader of the twelve. Peter was probably the oldest among the apostles. In the Jewish religious and familial context it was quite understandable that the eldest son had special rights and privileges. Jesus and the apostolic community probablv followed the Jewish social custom in this matter. Together with Andrew, Peter was also the first called.

2.While the patristic tradition is agreed on the pre­eminence and representative character of Peter’s role among the apostles, they do not all take the prominence of Peter in any unqualified manner as later interpreted by the Bishops of Rome basing their arguments primarily and literally on Matthew 16:18. Peter, James and john are in a special category of leadership according to one stream of apostolic tradition. Peter and Paul together are called chiefs among the apostles in another stream of tradition of the Church.

3.We have no clue either to interpret the fact that Jesus gave special privileges to three apostles — namely Peter, James and John. They appear together on three privileged occasions – the transfiguration of Jesus, his agony in Gethsemane and the raising of Jairus’s daughter. But the Church apparently did not attribute any special pre-eminence to the chosen trio in its later organization or structure.
It is significant that James the brother of Jesus, was made the head of the Church in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was indeed the mother Church. If Peter’s primacy implied anything for the administration of the Church and its overall authority, he should have been the head of the mother Church.

4.In the Council of Jerusalem, the first of its kind in Christian history, it was not Peter but James who presided (Acts 15). Peter was a prominent speaker, but significantly it was the final judgment of James as spokesman for all thatbecame the decision of the Council. Also, when the Council announced its decision, it said, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” So it was the Apostolic College together with the elders and the whole community guided by the Spirit that became the source of the decision. Peter had no unique role in making the decision or announcing it.

4.There is no conclusive New Testament evidence that Peter was uniquely associated with the Church of Rome. In fact, Antioch had a better Petrine claim. St Peter’s association with the Christian Church of Rome is a matter of the strong patristic tradition like in the case of several other apostles with particular local churches.

5.It is understood in the Eastern Churches that Rome’s claim of primacy was not justified on basis of the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul, but on the ground of its being the imperial capital. Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople (381) gives the newly established See of Constantinople first rank in protocol after Rome, but preceding the old Alexandria and Antioch, because “Constantinople is new Rome.”

6. If a “Petrine” theology is assumed Antioch should be listed at least together with Rome if not the first. It is obvious to any student of history that all the later patriarchal centres like Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch simply followed the political protocol of the imprial Roman government. Jerusalem, where the Saviour himself died and rose from the dead, had all the legitimate claim to be the mother of all Churches and the primus of all episcopal sees. But Jerusalem was relegated to the last place in the famous Byzantine notion of “Pentarchy”.

7.It should be remembered that all these imperial protocols, patriarchal claims and primacy questions affected primarily the churches within the ancient Roman imperial borders where it was simply assumed that the Roman empire was ‘the whole inhabited earth’ (Oikoumene), the civilised universe. This protocol, however, was not known to ancient churches that existed outside of those borders in “barbarian” lands like Persia, Ethiopia, China and India .However, in later history some of these churches accepted the old system of primatial protocol of the ancient Roman empire for the sake of harmony and concord.

Witness of Eastern Liturgical Sources

The Eastern liturgical texts in general interpreted Mathew 16:18 and the “rock”in terms of the faith in the Messiah confessed by Peter on behalf of the Twelve, the Apostolic College.

1. Kudosh Etho (Sanctification of the Church) is the Sunday with which the liturgical year begins in the West Syriac tradition. That Sunday and the following Sunday of (Hudos Etho -Dedication of the Church), provide theological expositions on the mystery of the Ecclesia. The statements in the Proemion-Sedro prayers on these feast days surprisingly do not mention the name of Peter, although they ‘refer to the words of Christ like “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” These prayers which are normative for the theology of the West Syriac Orthodox Tradition contain statements like the following:

-”The Church’s foundations were well established on the solid rock of the faith of the Apostles”

-”You (Christ) are the true rockon which stands the Church.”

(Kudosh Etho, Morning Prayer, Proemion-Sedro)

“Your (Church’s) foundation is established on the Apostles, the dressed stone blocks”.

(Hudos Etho, Evening Prayer, Proemion-Sedro)

In the prayers for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, it is said: -”You built your Church on the faith that Peter confessed..”

-”You (Christ) are the living stone that has become the cornerstone. Peter and his friends are living stones built together with you.

(Feast of Peter and Paul, Evening Prayer, Proemion-Sedro)

These statements, which appear in the liturgical texts, clearly express the faith of the Oriental Orthodox theological tradition regarding Petrine primacy. Peter is never literally taken as the foundation of the Church. It’s the faith of the whole Apostolic College that makes the rock on which the Church is founded. This is the strong oral tradition transmitted by traditional teachers as well.

2.Primacy in the Church is of different types like a) Sacramental Primacy, b) Primacy of Love and honour, c)Pastoral Primacy d)Jurisdictional Primacy. In Peter’s case, was there any special sacramental primacy since all the Apostles had received the same apostolic seat of authority and the same commission to celebrate the Eucharist in rembrance of Jesus Christ until he came again, to heal the sick and to preach the Good News to the world? Peter certainly had a special role of pastorally tending and co-ordinating his brothers. Ultimatelv both sacramental and pastoral ministry of any Apostle was dependent on the ministry of the twelve as a whole and on the commissioning by Christ the unique Chief Shepherd. We may safely say that this corporate collegial principle of sucession applies to the whole episcopate across the ages. Any over-empahsis on the linear, individual succession of bishops does not really conform to the spirit of Orthodox Christian Tradition.

Peter certainly had a primacy of Love and Honour, probably due to his seniority in age. Even the local Church of Rome at the end of the first century was given this attribute of a `presidency of love’ (prokathemene tes agapes) by St Ignatius of Antioch. Peter certainly had no jurisdictional primacy over other local churches founded by Apostle Paul and others.

3.There is no evidence in the New Testament or in early centuries that the Bishop of a local Church exercised jurisdiction or ruling authority over any other local church. When Clement of Rome, head of the local Church of Rome wrote to the local Church of Corinth, he began thus: “The Pilgrim Church of Rome writing to the Church of God in Corinth in pilgrimage.” The sense of reality of the passing pilgrim is radically different from the sense of reality of the rulers of this world. Ecclesiology has to choose in between them.

Primacy in the Church- Some Points for Discussion:

There are different understandings of primacy like the

1.Primacy of an Archbishop/ Metropolitan over a group of diocesen bishops in a region. Some call it Regional Primacy with the assumption that there is something called Global Primacy above and beyond Regional Primacy.

2.Primacy of a Patriarch/ Catholicos or Archbishop/ Metropolitan within a Local Church

3.Primacy at a universal level as claimed by the Bishop of Rome or of Constantinople on the basis of the Oikoumene or Roman empire.

The first two are probably merged in the Eastern Churches with the emergence of Local autocephalous churches.

The third exists in Rome and Constantinople but with a qualitative difference between them. Archbishop/Patriarch of Constantinople claims only a Primacy of Honour over other Local Churches in the Byzantine Eastern Orthodox Tradition as the Bishop of the capital city (New Rome) of the Oikoumene. The Bishop of Rome claims a universal primacy (Pastor Universalis) as Successor of Peter and as Vicar of Christ . The traditional title Patriarch of the West, arguably acceptable to the Orthodox Churches, was abolished recently by Pope Benedict XVI, probably to strengthen the claim of the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It is significant, however, that the present Pope Francis declared at his very first appearance on the Balcony of St Peters Basilica: ‘ I am the Bishop of Rome’ without any further attributes. The ecumenical implications of this statement are encouraging.

The Orthodox Churches, both in the Eastern and Oriental families, practise primacy within their local churches, but it seems they do not attempt to give any theological rationale for primacy except that of the sacramental raison d’etre of the chief episcopos whose uniting, coordinating and overseeing ministry in and for the Body of Christ is exercised in integral consultation with the council of bishops, presbyters and the the whole people of God. All other forms of primacy except the sacramental-episcopal primacy symbolizing Chirst the chief shepherd may be understood as necessitated by the historical evolution in the administrative and organizational patterns of the Church. There are canons pertaining to primacy, but they are not linked. to any biblical-theological arguments as in the Roman Church.

There is certainly a strong charismatic element associated with primacy in the Oriental tradition. In our experience primates with the charism of saintliness and various spiritual gifts would be endowed with authority as well as acceptance by the people to a far greater degree than warranted by their canonical position. This is also the point at which Christian primatial leadership has to be disntinguished from the authority of the rulers of this world. The communion ecclesiology of the Church is best served by the spiritual and soteriological understanding of primatial ministry, as pesonally illustrated by our Lord, within a minimum necessary canonical framework rather than by complex historically and organizationally evolved reasons. Any attempt to approximate the primatial ministry to the perichoretic Trinitarian model, however apophatic and idealistic, may yield positive results.

Source: