Hecausgeber fis die Gesellschaft fir das Recht der Ostkirchen Astrid Karrayy Yearbook of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches Primacy and Synodality Deepening Insights Proceedings of the 23" Congress of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches Debrecen, September 3-8, 2017 edited by Péter Szané Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Hungary St Athanasius Theological Institute Nyiregyhaza, 2019‘imacy and Synodality he Challenges of the Second Millennium archbishop Job (Getcha) of Telmessos latest document of the Joint International Commission for the’The-~ “elogical Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Ortho- ox Church, referred as the “Chieti Document”, deals with the theme Primacy and Synodality within the first millennium. It came to the ion that: “Throughout the frst millennium, the Church in the East d the West twas united in preserving the apostolic faith, maintaining the policsuecersion of bishops, developing structures of synodality inseparably d with primacy, and in an understanding of authority as a service jonia) of love. Though the unity of East and West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West were conscious of belonging tothe one Church” ? Having deal with the first millennium, it would be legical that the Joint | International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between these ‘avo Churches would examine now the theme of Primacy and Synodality © within the second millennium. This should be discussed and decided these upcoming days, dusing the meeting of the coordinating commit- £ Joist Inrensatioxat Comsassiox ror Tizovocical Diatocue aerwees tue Rowan Caruouic Cuunci axp tHe Oxriiopox Cnuach, “Synodal- 4 and Primacy during the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understand- Ing in Service to the Unity of the Church’, Chieti 21 Seprember 2016; n. 20; se ‘bup://mw.chrstanuniy-va/content/onitacristani/ivdialoghi/srione-otientale/ chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-misa-internazionale per-il-dislogo-teologico-trala/documenti-di-dialoga/aot6-sinodalitae-primsto- ‘el-primo-millennio--verso-usa-comune-/testo-in-ingleet html SLEC 37 Cones Primary ad Slytee that will take place on Leros. Independently of what will be decided concerning the future theme for the work of the commission, the alin of this paper is to ceflect on the challenges that we encounter in the history of the second millennium, both East and West, with regards to the theme of primacy and synodality, and what “pseudomorphose” has happened during that period in the consciousness of “éelonging tothe one Chard ‘The Crusades and the creation in the East of parallel Latin Patriarchates ‘When reflecting on the problems which were caused by the Westin the second millennium with regards to the relations berween Bast and West, cone can immediately think of the Crusades. The initial intention of the Crusade was legitimate and pious: free che occupied major Christian centres of the East from the Islamic rule. The first Crusade, called in 1095 bby Pope Urban I was aimed to give support to the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komneaos who needed support facing the Turks who were colonising Anatolia. But some scholars see in this initlative a strategy of Urban Il to solve the interruption of communion that had happened forty years earlier in 105 by establishing himself as the head of ¢ univer- sal Church of both the East and the West. “The first Crusade was followed during two centuries by six major Crusades and several less significant ones. Besides the question of the authority of the Pope over the East, the attitude of the Crusaders to- wards the Eastern Christians of that time produced a considerable trau- ma among the Orthodox which lasts until today. Crusaders often pil- Jaged the churches as they travelled, and their leaders often sought to capture territory and have authority over it instead of returning it to the Byzantines. The worst trauma was caused by the sack of Constantino~ ple during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Crusaders then caprured and destroyed parts of Constantinople and established 2 Latin Empire, of ‘which Baldwin of Franders was crown emperor in Saint Sophia. Many precious treasures and holy relics were taken to the West, where most of them are kept until today, and the great Library of Constantinople wvas then destroyed. Many civilians were killed and several women were raped. The Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2087 8 had to fled and found refuge in Nicea, where they remained until 1261. ‘A contemporary 12 century Byzantine historian, Nicetas Choniates, in his Xpovne} éufynois commented about the Fourth Crusade: “Even the Saracens are merciful and Bind, compared with these men who bear the Cross of Christ on their shoulders." For the historian Sir Steven Runciman, “The Crusaders brought not peace but a sword; and the sword was to sever Christendom.” For this reason, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware came to the conclusion that “affer 1204 there can be mo doubt that Cristian east and Christian west were divided into tue”: “This fracture between a Christian East and a Christian West, which is a direct consequence of the Crusades had as an immediate consequence the establishment of parallel jurisdictions in the East. At the time of the Latin Empire, 2 Latin Patriarchate was created in Constantinople in 1204, parallel to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Other parallel Latin Pe- ttiarchates existed in in Jerusalem from rogg until 1291, which was later restored in 1847, as well as in Antioch from 1x9 and in Alexandria from 1341. These parallel structures were only suppressed in 1964! Grigorios Papathomas sees in the constitution of these Latin Patriarchate 2 major ccclesiological deviation since the creation of parallel jurisdiction, or in other words ecclesial co-territoriatl, violates the very antique canonical principle of only one bishop in one city This phenomenon introduced a radical change in the mind-set of Christianity, which only grew over the centuries. Starting from this mo- rent, the Church of the West (the Latin Church of that time, or the Roman Catholic Church of today) and the Church of the Bast (the Greek Church of that time, or the Orthodox Church of today) started considering themselves as two distinct, parallel Churches, and not an- 7” Ralls (Timothy Wa, Ti Orta Church London, 3 Gagaios Prarosts ‘A ems de poner. La paced a deme poseeedeaiggu: de Teg une nox poms Elin des ape Son de plea Tantuntinerent ou Corps du Chest in le 008) Sara co-tertorii or aura es ares“ ation doppstion ne Else rable lolemen et i rps eels Lunt eocesnogque ice coe ‘oral ela mule joideto’ in Linn canoe 46009) 7m Iby Le uate nce a de mae del Ppa etveeg se uae ‘ein ant cnoige dno cane dl trea pd gue Fetincennt Ege), hpuhempertedon cx PWerhadeatesta Caton gesaNeauctaedeeeoco Ter pa Primary ad Srey88+ suse 25% conoRESS ~ pmisACY AND syNODALITY ymore as one Church. Until now, we have not pay enough attention to consequences of the creation of the Latin Patriarchates in the East with regards primacy and synocality. Nevertheless, in the first half of the 15% century, at the time of the council of Ferrare-Florence (1438-1439) it was still possible to gather in a council, which ought to be an ecumenical one, as ane Church, applying the principles of the synodality of the pentarchy of the frst millennium. Unfortunately, this ceased to be the case after. Since then and until today, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church start looking daggers at each other, corsidering themselves as two different parallel Church, As N. Lossky once put it, “the couneil of Florence represents the point from «which the schism between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church bas really been consumed? * Actually, it would be interesting to study with a new approach the council of Ferrare-Florence with regards the practice of primacy and synodaliry in the middle of the second millenium. Of course, as a coun- cil called to restore the unity of the Church, it was a failure, But as an example of how primacy and synodality was stil functioning in the first half of the 15 century, itis an extremely interesting witness. Very often historiography says that the council was one of opportunity, considering that the "Grecks” needed che support of the West to save Byzantium, But in reality, the “Latins” needed the council and the support of the “Greeks” even more because the Church in the West was at that time divided between the “coniliarist” movement and the papacy since the xa century. The conciliarst believed that the supreme authority in the Church resided in the ecumenical council and not in the person of the pope. In fact, both parties,the coneiliarists and the pope, sought the sup port of the Byzantines, Finally, the Byzantines took the side of the pope by accepting his invitation, by applying the system of the pentarchy.s As a matter of fact, che council of Ferrare-Florence was a prolongation of Nicol Lossiy, Climat sbiloigus au cancle de Florence, im Christian Unity. Toe Connol ef Ferrava-Ploreeerg3@/437 79%, edited by Giuseppe Avsenico (Biblio~ ‘theca epherneridum theologicarum lovaniensiom 97), Leuven 1991 24250. CE Marie Helene Coscavineat, Pourguci lee Grete ont reet Union de Florence (1438-1439), in Brono Betnovasr ~ Michel Fougcape ~ Christian Sosnet (eds), Hentivs ligase Dialga t confrontations onstruction deanstraction. Actes de XV Universite dété du Carrefour dhistoiteeeligicuse, Belly, 20-1 ullee 2008, (Les Cabices du Linoral, 2,109), Boulogne sur Mer 2010, 35-46 waning MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2087 * 89 the council of Base] which, in r43t, declared himself superior to the pope and even began a trial against the pope in 1432. It is only in r4gq that the council accepted the authority of the pope. In 1437, Pape Bugene IV, pre- texting the necessity of restoring communion with the Easten Church, transferred the council to Ferrare where the presence of the Byzantine Emperor and of the Ecumenical Patriarch were indispensable in order to excommunicate the fathers of the council of Basel and cancel its de- cisions. Iris also extremely important to note that while the Greeks and the Latins discussed openly at Florence all their points of divergence: purgatory, iiaque and the Eucharist (zeyme bread and epicless), papal primacy did not occupy at the centre of attention. In fact, the definition of the primacy of the pope in the council of Florence was aimed at that time to solve not a problem dividing the Christian East and the Chris- tian West, but a problem dividing the Church in the West, between conciliarists and partisans of the papacy” Uniatism: a policy of return to the Church of Rome “The unionist policy of the see of Rome, conceiving the unity of the Church being realised through a return tothe true Church and commiion ‘with the holy see of Rome, is a challenge which arose in the second mil- Iennium, as a consequence of the creation of paralle jurisdictions. The history of uniatism is diverse and complexed, since it varies from one region to another, as for exemple: the union of the Maronites in the 12" century, the Union of Brest-Litovsk of 1596, the union of the Malabar Church of India at the end of the 16° century are three completely dif ferent cases. Therefore, we shall not enter now into details of its history in the present papers? Although uniatism first appeared for different historical reasons, it became an ideology which conceived itself as the proper way or method to achieve Church unity. This model of Church unity was based on a policy of return’: the dissident or schismatic Orthodox ought to return ‘© Ci Joseph Gu, “The Defisition of the Primacy ofthe pope in the Council of Florence’, Th Heseirep Journal s (3961) 12-29. See on this copie’ Taras Knxonewcs, “Easter Catholic Churches and the Question of Uniatism’ Problems of the Pas, Challenges of the Present, Hopes for the Fi- tue’ in Lovenin Studie 3t (2006) 24-237 nc and Sodan90" SLEC 33 CONGRESS ~ PRIMACY AND SYNODALITY to the Roman Catholic Church, which was considered as being identi- fied to the One, Holy, Cetbolic and Apostolic Church, and the concession granted to the Orthodox was to keep their own liturgical and canonical tradition, considered as 2 separate rite from the Latin one, The vouch ‘of Church unity was the see of Rome in the person of the Pope, acting more and more as universal pontiff than a primus inter pares. The sense of synodality was lost Untatism as a method to seach unity was already condemned by Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Ro- man Catholic Church ard the Orthodox Church in the text of Freising (990) and the documen: of Balamand (1993) which stated: “we reject it 1s method forthe search for unity because itis opposed tothe common tradition of our Churches” (Balamand, paragraph 2). The document of Balamand explains it this way: In be course ofthe last four centuries, in various parts of the Eas, initiatives woere taken svithin certain Churches and impelled by outside elements, restore iommunion between the Church of the East and the Church of the West. These ‘niiatives led to the union of certain communities ‘with the See of Rome and brought with thems, as a consequence, the breaking of communion with their Mother Churches of the East. This took place nat ‘without the interference oftetracclesial interests. In this way Oriental Catholic Churches came into being. And so a situation was created which bas become a source of conflicts and of sufering in the frst instance for the Orthodox but also _for Catholics" (paragraph 3). Nevertheless, uniatism remains a trauma for many Orthodox people, which continue to seein its existence a policy of unity of the Church though a return to the Roman Catholic Church. “The presence of the uniate ecclesial structure also complicated the quest of Christian unity, instead of solving it, by creating additional parallel scclesial structuce. The document of Balamand condemned uniatism as 4 method to achieve unity,but so called “Uniats”, that is Eastern Catholics \who are the descendants of these unions do exist,and have a right co exist, although by the fact of their existence parallel ecclesal jurisdictions exist in the East and complicates the resolution of Church unity. As it was stated recently in @ common declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kisil of Moscow in Havana in 2016, “eis taday clear that tke past method of “uniatisn, understood asthe union of one community to the other, separating it from its Church, isnot the way to re-establish unity. Nonetheless, the eclesial ‘communities which emerged in these historical circumstances have the right to MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 20:7" 9 exist and to undertake all that is necessary to meet the spiritual needs of their faithful, cobile seeking to live in peae with their neighbours. Orthodsx and Greek Catholics are in need of reconciliation and of mutually acceptable forms of co-exivtence” (paragraph 25) With regards to the practice of primacy and synodality within these Oriental Catholic Church sui juris it is interesting to note that some of them (like the Maronite, the Coptic, the Armenian, the Syriac, the Melkite and the Chaldean) have the right to elect through their synod their own patriarch which nevertheless must be approved by the pope who remains, within the Roman Catholic Church the pontiff of the universal Church, who has a direct jurisdiction over the bishops of these ‘Churches sui juris! This is a major difference between the practice of primacy and synodality within the Orthodox Church, and among the Oriental Catholic Churches su jeris. Their patriarchs have only a role of primus on a regional level,’ but do not participate to synodality at @ universal level, since they are submitted to the authority of the pope of whom they are not peers.* ‘The universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome “The apex of the tensions between the Christian East and the Chris- tian West came at the end of the second millennium, in the middle of the 19 century, when, shortly after his ascension to the papal throne in 1846 and the restoration of che Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 1847, Pope Pius IX wrote his Apostolic Letter In suprema Petri apostoli sede (On the Supreme Throne of Peter the Apostle) dates of 6 January 2848 While ic was primarily intended for Oriental Christians who entered in communion with Rome throug uniatism, it was also addressed Or- thodox Christians, calling them back to unity with Rome. In his leer, Pope Pius IX, considering himself to be “placed by divine disposition on the supreme seat af the Apostle Peer, and burdened with responsibility forall the Churches", criticised the Orthodox for not being in communion with 8 Tonnes Pavvus Il Cadex Cononum Beesiarum Orientalumy, 8. X.1990,in AAS St (6990), I, 3033-1365 (© CCEO), cc. 4gand 45. 9 CCEO ce 550. ro See my artcie:Job Gerctia, “Le parirche dan a tradition des Eglises oriearaes", in tina $8 (205) 5-2. Primacy and Sealy92 *SLEC 35! CONGRESS ~ PRIMACY AND SYNODALITY his see: “Ultimately, down to these mast recent times, even as (sadly!) far too great a number of Eastern Christians distanced itself from communion with ‘his Holy See and as a consequence from the unity of the Catholic Church.” ‘The letter praised the “Catholic Bishops, Venerable Brothers and beloved sons, and (the] clergy in all orders who have persevered, unshakable in the {faith and communion with this Holy Se, or who, no les praiseworthy, have returned to it hacing recognized [their] error" For this reason, Pius [X's letter has been characterised by the Dominican Aidan Nichols as “the [fist unionist encyclical of the modern papacy” but at the same time as “a papal concern for the Christian East of a depth and urgency not seen since Florence This apostolic letter encyclical provoked a vigorous reaction from the East which was expressed by the famous encyclical of the four Eastern Patriarchs of 1848, signed by Patriarchs Anthimos VI of Constantino- ple, Hierotheus IT of Alexandria, Methodios of Antioch and Cyril Il of Jerusalem, along with the Holy Synods’ members of each of the Patriar~ chates. One can see from the very form of its composition the expression of synodality as maintained in the Orthodox Church, as opposed to the centralistic vision of Pope Pius IX, already seeing himself as the bishop of the universal Church, Besides attacking the “heresy” of the fliague as a “new doctrine”, contrary John 1:26 and the Symbol of faith (paragraphs 5-6), the encyclical attacked Pius IX saying: “Pius IX. Becoming Bishop «of Rome and proclaimed Pape in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in ‘his present year, an Encyclical Letter addresed to the Easterns, consisting of ve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary bas disseminated, like a plague consing from without, within our Orthodox Fold (...] Unurping as ‘is oun possesion the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as be Boasts of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): nor is there any reason wwhy ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion ‘with this my holy Tarone’” (par- agraph 12). Besides his synodical form, the encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs is also interesting with regards to the question of primacy and synodality, since it recognises explicitly the primacy of the see Rome: "Who denies ‘aA French translation ofthe letter hat been published in Freniton 6 (tg2q) 666-886. 12 Aidan Nicwtoes, Rome and eby Ease Churhes, San Francisco 2010, 38 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4,2017* 93, that the ancient Roman Church was Apsstolic and Orthodox? None of us will question that it was a model of orthodoxy. [...] Weld any of the Fathers or ourselves deny ber canonical privilege in the rank ofthe hierarchy, so long as she was guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, walking by the plain rule of Scripture and the boly Syneds? Nevertheless, it condemned the see of Rome for its innovations: “But at present we do not find preserved in ber the dogma of the Blessed Trinity according to the Creed of the holy Fathers assembled first in Nicea and afterwards in Constantinople, which the ther five Ecumenical Councils confessed and confirmed with such anathemas om those who adulterated it in the smailese particular, as if they had thereby destroyed it, Nor do we find the Apostlic pattern of boly Baptism, nor the Invrcation of the consecrating Spirit upon the holy elements’. It also criti~ cizes the pope of Rome for having transformed his role of being primus into pares into a jurisdictional supremacy: “We see that very primacy, for ‘which his Holiness now contends with all bis might, as did his predecessors transformed from a brotherly character and bierarchical privilege intoa lordly superiority” The encyclical emphasises that the primacy of the Church of Rome was not # personal jurisdictional supremacy of the pope, but @ primacy of honour of the see, being the capital of the empire: “Thus, be ‘who is cited by his Holines ie. Saint Lreneus] as. witness of the primacy of ‘the Roman Church, shows that its dignity is not that of a lordship, nor even appellate, to which St. Peter himself was never ordained, but isa brotherly privilege in the Catholic Church, and ar Bonowr assigned the Popes on actount af the greatness and privilege of the City. Thus, alo, tbe fourth Ecumenical Council, for the preservation ofthe gradation in rank of Churches canonically established by the third Ecumenical Council (Canon §),—fellowing the second (Canon 3), as that again fallowed the first (Canon 6), which called the “appellate jurisdiction af the Pope over the West a Customi,—thus uttered its determination: On account ofthat City being the Imperial City the Fathers ave with reason given it prerogatives (Canon 28). Heres notbing sai ofthe Popet special moncpoly of the Apostlicity of St. Pete, stil less of a vicarship in Rome's Bishops, and an universal Pastorae. This deep silence in regard fo such great privileges—nor only so, but the reason assigned for the primacy, not ‘Feed my sheep,’ not ‘On this rock will I build my Church but simply old Custom, and the City being the Imperial City; and these things, not from the Lord, but from the Fathers—will seem, we are sure, a great paradox 10 bis Holiness entertaining other ideas of his prerogatives." (paragcaph 13) racy and Sst3! CONGRESS ~ PRIMACY AND SYNODALITY ‘The encyclical then calls the innovations being preached by the Paps- cyas anti-synodical and foreign to the Tradition of the Church “From all this, every one nourished in sound Catholic doctrine, particularly bis Holiness, ‘muse drave the conclusion, bow impious and anti-synadical it isto attempt the alteration ofour doctrine and liturgies and other divine offices’. underlines then underlines that the cause of this innovations is actually due to @ lack of synodality: "Moreover, neither Patriarchs nor Councils could then ‘ave intreduced novelties amongst us, Because the protector of religion isthe very bady ofthe Church, even the people themselves, robo desire their religious worship to be ever unchanged and of the same kind as that of their fathers. It is interesting to note in this passage that the very famous phrase of the encyclical stating that “the protector of religion is the very Body of the Church, even the people themselves" should be understood not asa privilege of the laity as opposed to the hierarchy or the episcopacy, as itis often interpreted, but as the application of the very principle of synodality according to which the protos (primate) is not over the synod, but among the synod in which, each bishop, recapitulates the entire body of his local Church. But the apex of the practice ofthe universal jurisdiction of the bishop ‘of Rome and its infailibiity found its forrmulation in the Vatican I in the dogmatic constitution Pastor ternus promulgated by Pope Pius IX §n 1870. In a patriarchal and synodal encyclical dated of 1895, and signed by Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos VII and the twelve metropolitans of the Synod, reacted indirectly to this new dogma®, where it was stated that: “in these last times the evil ome has rent from the orthodax Church of Christ even whole nations in the West, having inflated the bishops of Rome ‘with thoughts of excessive arrogance, which has given birth to divers lawlest ‘and antivevangelical innovations” (paragraph 1). ‘The encyclical is in fact a response to the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII of June 1894 in which the method of uniatism was connected with the dogma of universal jurisdiction: “Accordingly the Pope of Rome, Leo ILL, (...Jinvites our orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ to unite with the papal throne, thinking that such union can only be obtained by acknorwledging him as supreme pontiff and the bighest spiritual and temporal ‘ay article Job Geresa, La Jere encylique patiarcale et synodale du siege de Constantinople de 1895 en réponse au concle Vatican I eta pape Léon XIIM,in Tiina 54 (2009) 3-385, 8 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 20:7 * 95 ruler of the universal Church, asthe only representative of CBrist upon earth ‘and the dispenser ofall grace” (paragraph 2). It is Smee wo andeine that in their encyclical, Patriarch Anthimos VII with the members of his Holy Synod do ot reject the ques ofthe unity ofthe Church, since “no doubt every Cristian heart cught to be filled with longing for inion o the Churche:" (paragraph 3), but stressed ie “Agreabiy fon oie sacred longing, our orthodox Church of Christ is altaays ready to accept am proposal of union, if only the Bishop of Rome would shake off once for all the ‘whole series of the many and divers anti-evangelical novelties that have been rivily broughe into bis Church, and have provoked the sad division of the Churches ofthe East and West, and would return tthe basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Council (paragraph 3). ‘Therefore, according to the encyclical, the unity of the Church ought ‘not to be realised through union with Rome, neither through the exer- ‘ise of a universal jurisdiction of the pope of Rome over the other local Churches, but through the correct exercise of synodality according to Which the protos is a member of the synod to which he is submitted ‘having recourse tothe fathers and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church of the first nine centuries, we are fly persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was ever considered as the supreme authority and infallible bead ofthe Church, and that every bishop is bead and president of bis own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal 4s being alone infallible, the Bishop of Rome being in no wise excepted from ‘this rule, as Church bistory shows" (paragraph 14). Having thus reminded thatthe profes is not over the synod, but among. the synod, the encyclical underlines that the prezogatives of the bishop of Rome, as primus inter pares, were linked with the position of his see within the empire: “The divine Fachers, onoring the Bishop of Rome only as the bishop of the capital city ofthe Empire, gave him the honorary prerogative of presidency, considering bim simply as the bishop frst in order, that is, ist ‘among equals ...] For the Fathers have rightly given the prerogative to the ‘throne of the elder Rome, because that was the impersal city. (...] There is nna bint given in any canon or by any ofthe Fathers thet the Bishop of Rome alone bas ever been prince of the universal Church and the infallible judge of the bishops of the other independent and self-governing Churches, or the a of the Apostle Peter and vicar of Jesus Christ on earth” (paragraph 1). racy and Spadagf $180 23" CONGRESS ~ PRIMACY AND SYNODALITY “The encyclical continues its development on the exercise of primacy and synodality by reminding that primacy does not allow any interven tion of the primate into inner affairs of a local Church: “Each particular self-governing Church, both in the East and West, was totally independent ‘and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, And just asthe bishops ofthe self-governing Churches ofthe East, so alo those of “Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany and Britain managed the affairs of their oun Churches, each by their local synods, the Bishop of Rome having no right 10 interfere, and be bimself also was egually subject and obedient to the decrees of synods" (paragraph 16). On a universal level, questions were resolved in 4 synodical way through the councils which were the supreme author~ ity: "But on important questions which needed the sanction of the universal Church an appeal cas made to an Ecumenical Council, which alone was and is the supreme tribunal in the universal Church, Such was the ancient constitution ofthe Church; bu the bishops were independent ofeach otber and cach entirely fre within bis oxn bounds, obeying only the syndical decrees, and they sat as egual one to another in synods, Moreover, none of them ever laid claim to monarchical rights over the universal Church; and if sometimes certain ambitious bishops of Rome raised excessive elaims to an absolutism tmknown to the Church, such were duly reproved and rebubed? (paragraph 26) ‘The maximalist vision of the universal jurisdiction of the pope as de- veloped in the 19" century and as defined by the council Vatican I, com- bined by the policy of uniatism, have definitely traumatized the mind- set of the Orthodox. Even though the dogmas of Vatican I have been somehow balanced by the ecclesiology of Vaticas I it is not clear for an Ozthodox mind how the traditional principles of primacy and synodality could be preserved by the dogmas of Vatican I. Taisis an issue that ought to be seriously clarified, and this is why the former co-president of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Cardinal Wal- ter Kasper,was calling for a "relecture” of Vatican I through the lenses of Vatican IL. 7 Wer Kase, Pang haréneugus pou alc des does de ied epic Su dalagoestbogn ood ine $o MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2017* 97 ‘The captivity of the Great Church and its implication on. synodality “The problems of primacy and synodslity in the second millennium do not only concern the “Roman Catholic” West, but also the “Orthodox” East. Following the fall of Byzantium in 1453, the Orthodox Church in the Ottoman empire was organised as a Rum mileti, placed under the authority of the ecumenical patriarch, who had not only a spiritual authority as the patriarch of his local Church, but also secular prerog- atives as ethnarch." The patriarch and his synod ought not only to deal ‘with doctrinal and canonical issues, but also legal questions (marriage, divorce, succession, adoption, trials, etc.) and financial questions (taxts).* ‘This organization of the Christians within the Ottoman empire led, de ‘feito, 1 the absorption of the other three Eastern Patriaschates (Al- ‘xandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) and of the autocephalous Church of Cyprus by the patriarchate of Constantinople, being all members of the same Rum mileti and being submitted to the same ethnarch, although, in theory, they retained their ecclesiastical independence." Most the East- erm patriarchs lived in Constantinople and in most of the cases, their lection took place in Constantinople." For this reason, the historian A. Kartachev considers that under the Ottoman rule, “éhe patriarchate of Constantinople had absorbed all the Church ofthe East’.* Steven Ronesian, he Great Church Capi Stay of the Parichat of Co dante fromthe ove fe ark Conga tothe Greek War of Indegennes Ca— Inde 968, sonst; Cheertomos G.Pananorotion Le prep du otecat, acacia des [Epi otteman, Pasa 3924 39 Viti LAURENT Les Chet tes sos es slang in edo Orient 28 (on) 998-406 Se abo my ace: Job Gereia,"La primate du prvarche ecaméniqu cans Empire oto” in ine 5¢ 2009) 1 Roncran, The Great Chnc (.5) r-76; Paraboroutos, La preg en 5), 27-4 17 Aro Karratem, Hpacnuea anestioso pons Koxcmaimeronoere am puro, Baan 936,24; Ma Coron, Konemamanonsrcran spony 8X20 «2, Caner-Nlerep6y pr 1904, 13-15; RUNCIMAN, The Great Church (fen. 15), 176-1783 Pa- aooratio8 Le priv in) 86-4. 18 Karras, poomua fn), 24-17 Aneel Jess, Hemera Fpesceomocc Lepne nod axcemvo mpi, Cer rep 1996 75786. 19 Karvateny, pom (3). Prac on Syd‘98+ suc 23 coNoRESS - PRIMACY AND SYNODALITY Nevertheless, despite this new situation, imposed by the Ottomans, the spirit of synodality was preserved and the ecumenical patriarch, be~ ing at the same time the ethnarch of all the Christian people, did not override his rights, We can give five examples of major councils eonvoked by the ecumenical patriarch during that period to solve in a synodal way new and burning issues: 1) the council of Constantinople of 390 to con- firm the title of patriarch granted earlier to the metropolitan of Moscow by the ecumenical patriarch; 2) the council of Iasi of 1642 to adjudicate the Confession of faith of the Metropolitan of Kiev Peter Moghila; 3) six councils between 1638 and r6g1, to condemn the Confession of Faith of the ecumenical patriarch Cyril Lukaris, .) the patriarchal and synodical encyclical of the four Eastern Patriarchs of 1848, which we mentioned before, which was signed by Patriarchs Anthimos VI of Constantino- ple, Hierotheus IT of Alexandria, Methodios of Antioch and Cyril II of Jerusalem, and 29 metropolitans, members of the Holy Synods of their respective Patriarchate, 5) the council of Constantinople of 1872 which condemned ethnophyletism. All these examples show that despite the fact that the ecumenical patriarch as ethnarch had a supreme prerogative over all the Orthodox Christians within the Otcoman Empire, he never override his ecclesial rights of protos by solving ecclesial problems that appeared, not alone, but always in a synodal way by calling enlarged councils to resolve the “Synodal” period in the Church of Russia ‘The beginning of the 18th century in Russia was marked by sweeping reforms carried out by Peter the Great. The reforms did not leave the Russian Church untouched. After the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700, Peter the Great delayed the election of the new Primate of the Church of Russia because he did not want an authoritarian figure as patriarch. He established, in 1721, 2 collective supreme administration known &s the “Holy and Governing Synod”, The constitution of this Synod was not based on canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church, but copied from the Lutheran ecclesiastical synods in Germany. This period in the history of the Orthodox Church of Russia is known as the “synodal pe- riod”, but the administration of the Church during that period is quite MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 20:7 99 different, even stranger to from what one would expect from the prac- tice of primacy and synodality in the first millennium. The members of the Synod were not exclusively bishops, chosen by the Church, but consisted of twelve members: four archbishops, six archimandkites, and two archpriests — all nominated and dismissed by the tsar. The Holy Governing Synod, based in Saint Petersburg and presided over by the Metropolitan of Saint Petersburg, subject to the tsar, was nothing else than a pseudomorphosis of the practice of synodality of the first mille- nium, The Holy Synod rendered an annual account of its affairs through a lay procurator, who in fact governed the Russian Church. The Synod remained the supreme church body in the Russian church for almost two centuries “The patriarchate was restored in Russia at the Council of Moscow (4917-1918), which ought to re-establish the canonical practice of prima y and synodality. Nevertheless, because of the heritage of the synodal period and the influence of the Slavophile movement and of the dem- ‘cratic tendensies of that epoch, the council was much influenced by principles foreign to the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church, As H. Destivelle pointed out, the notion of sobornast as developed by the Slavophile played a determining role at the Council. For the great~ est representative of the Slavophiles, A. $. Khomiakoy, the notion of sobornost undermined the collective dimension of the Church, in which all the Christians, laymen, clergy and bishops, have the same rights" Consequently, the Council of Moscow considered the Church as composed by different groups, with diferent interests, who ought to be represented in the administration of the Church: the bishops, the cler- gy the monks and the laymen. But, as Georges Wagner pointed out, “in Antiquity, he bisbop was not considered as a representative of a certain episcopal state, but frst of all the head of the unity of bis entire local Church, « 30 Hyacinthe Destivene, Leconcile de Mosc (nrp-1pi)- La dation de institutions comiliares de 'Eglise orthedone rase\Cogitatio Fidei 248), Paris 2006, 46-48, See also: Ip, Le cence local de Meseow els oniiarit La guetion dela partipation det ‘Lei a comcil loa dans les débats preceniiaires, in Synad and snedalty. Teale, Histry, Canon Lats and Ecameniim in New Contact. International Colloquium, Bruges 2003, Alberto Metowt ~ Silvia Scarewa (eds), Minster 2005, 87199. 1 Alekae) : KnoMuanov, Ll latins ol protstontene au point de vue de Orient cretion, Lausanne ‘Vevey 1872, 48-49 6 Primacy and Sede100 * SLC 25 CONGRESS ~ PRIMACY AND SYNODALITY unity based on grace”. Nicolas Afanassieff made the same critique of the Council of Moscow, saying that its “notion of representativity, introduced in the administrative system of the Church (...] destroyed the unity of the ccclesal body"®. Furthermore, he declared: "How could an election of representatives of laity could invest them with the ministry of administration and grand them a corresponding grace? [..] Ifthe elected representatives of the laity do not possess the gift of administration, how could they conduct the Church? ...] Naturally, the Council of Mescow did not deny the charismatic ‘gifts ofthe bishops for the administration; but by putting on their sides laymen ‘who, according to the currant conception, are not consecrate, it declared that ‘these charismatic gifts were superfucus for the administration of the Church In any case, the administration of this charismatic organism became non charismatic, and was laicised in the bad sense of the word”. Such an understanding of conciliarity based on the notion of sebornest of the Slavophiles, is completely stranger to the tradition of synodality, as developed by the ancient canons. Nevertheless, it still creates a lot of confusion concerning the theme of primacy and synodality in the Or- thodox Church today. Ethnophyletism and autocephalism Another problem, which appeared in the 29° century, is the problem of ethnophyletism which was condemned at the Council of Constan- tinople of t872: “We renounce, censure and condemn phyletism, that is racial discrimination, ecbnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching af the Gospel and the holy canons of our lesed fathers which support the holy Church and the entire Christian world embellish it and lead it to divine godliness". cis important to emphasise that the council of 1872 did not con~ ddemmn religious nationalism simply as an ideology, but saw in this prob- lem a major ecclesiological problem. The cause was the establishment of 3 Georges Wace, Eescanoscoue teignae sr Blin La Ruiner Sere Job Gerona Ande Loge 50 Puts toy 13 Nios Avnvasnarn Ege Serr Bar (Capa Hiei 8), Ps 975,205 2 lawson 2 GiNtewoplie Masi oe Saab05 Ze paronaracmnia den Efi otedoe [trad, frangaise de J. Touraille), Paris 1975, 378-383. sun soavho MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2017* ror “national” Bulgarian Church, worldwide, without precise geographical limits, and having a universal jurisdiction over all Bulgarian, even on the territory of the Church of Constantinople itselé This understanding of the Church, based on national identity, provoked parallel jurisdiction, just as did previously the creation of Latin patriarchates and the policy of uniatism, Although it was officially condemned at the end of the 19% century, ethnophyletism continucs to be a problem in the Orthodox Church to day. For instance, at the beginning of the ar" century, the Churches of Russia and of Romania offically claimed thei jurisdiction over Russians and Romanians all over the world. The problem of ethnophyletism is also the season why the Orthodox Church is organised according to ethnic criteria in the so called “diaspora”, where are established several parallel ecclesial jurisdictions, problem that has not been totally re- solved by the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (2016) In his Opening Address at the Inaugural Session of the Holy and Great Council, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew criticised the sthnophyletis tendency within the Orthodox Church today, which leads each autocephalous Church to close itself on its own and to func~ tion totally independently from the other autocephalous Churches. He pointed out the dangers of such an atrophy of synodality at the universal level which leads each autocephalous Church to become totally inde- pendent and self-sufficient, thus giving an wrong image of the Ortho- dox Church not being one, but being rather a communion or a federa- tion of Churches: “While this structure [of autocephaly] is canonically and cclesiolegically correct, the danger of ts conversion into a kind of "federation Of Churcbes,"each of which promotes its own interests and ambitions —ewhich ‘themselves are not always of a strictly ecclesiastical nature ~ renders necessary the application of ynadality.” The patriarch declared: “Ifthe synadal system is generally mandatory in the life of the Church, the system of Autocephaly venders it sill mare obligatory for the protection and expression ofits unity”® 26 Ihpaviwwachaicounelorg/-/opesing-ecumenical-patasch? sot INSTANCE oOILsDUAGY7C.languageld-en_US Princ and Sai102 *SLEC 23" CONGRESS ~ PRIMACY AND SYNODALITY. Conclusion Our survey of the second millennium has shown many deviations in the exercise of primacy and synodality both East and West. The under- standing of the primacy as a universal jurisdiction in the West led to un- derstand the resolution of the unity of the Church as a policy of return and submission to the Roman pontiff known as uniatism and which has caused the creation of new parallel ecclesial structures. In the East, the ethnophylism became 2 temptation for the autocephalous Churches to consider themselves as self-sufficient, national Churches, without any ‘geographical boundaries, that could exercise jurisdiction over citizens of their nation worldwide, parallel to other Churches. Also, the notion of sobornost elaborated by the Slavophile movement, lacised the admin~ istration of the Church by introducing the notion of representativity of different categories, thus destroying the unity of the ecclesial body. All these tendencies provoked the loss of the sense of Being One Church. A historical study of the deviations and of the pseudomorphosis which have occurred during the second millennium, and in the 19° century in particular, can help us to purify both memories and ecclesial practices in order to recover the consciousness of écing One Church through a correct practice of primacy and synodality, in conformity with the paradigm of the common experience of the first millenium. deans “What's in a name?” Canonical Order of Precedence and the Diptychs of the Orthodox Church Chrysostomos Nassis ‘The question of primacy and synodality has absorbed an exorbitant amountof energy among theologians and canonists generating innumer- able, often electrifying, discussions on ecclesiology. Indeed, this theme hhas been at the core of polemical tracts and pronouncements, supplying both subtle and spurious arguments concerning the order of precedence ‘among primates and the canonical prerogatives stemming from such. ‘Hence, the issue of primacy and synodality has been burdened by many entrenchments, dug out, in no small measure, so that each party could hold its ground or even gain new ground at the expense of others. In fact, it has been at the root of church divisions for centuries. Needless to say, in this historically bellcose situation, perceived or real, coming out of the ditch is indeed a risky endeavor. Taking that risk, however, as one might deduce from more recent experiences, can be quite rewarding, if not altogether liberating. In what follows, I make no claim at presenting genuinely fresh or deepening insights, as the theme of this year’s congress dictates, into this ‘well-researched and studied topic. I simply hope to peak e bit above the sxound in order to offer a faint overview of the issue at hand, To achieve this I will review select canonical texts regarding the order of precedence of the primatial thrones of the Orthodox Church, especially with respect to the liturgical commemoration of their prelates according to the so- called ecclesiastical diptychs. To comprehend the date available in the SLEC 20 Cores Pama and Sly