I have been asked to present a talking-point paper on the Petrine Ministry for the sake of our dialogue. I apologise for its lack of sufficient references, and cohesion, since this was written partly during a journey abroad. On the other hand, since this journey was in Czechia and Slovakia, a land where tensions in the past have been very strong between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, perhaps it adds a certain perspective and flavour. The most significant flavour might be that of the early missions there of Sts Cyril and Methodius, the mentality of whose missionary work has formed the missionary work of all the missions of the Churches born from their labours, and which is reflected in the current missions worked by our parent Churches of Constantinople and Athens.

Generally, I consider it important to begin with the usual foundational Scriptural texts regarding the rôle of the Apostle Peter: Matthew 16:18-19: “And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”. Luke 22:32: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail ; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren”. John 21:15-17: “When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these ?’ He said to Him, ‘Yes, Lord, You know that I love You’. He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs’. A second time He said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me ?’ He said to Him, ‘Yes, Lord, You know that I love You’. He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep’. He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me ?’ Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me ?’ And he said to Him, ‘Lord, You know everything, You know that I love you’. Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep’”. In a similar vein, there are the examples of the Apostle Peter’s leadership of the Twelve in the Acts of the Apostles: in 1:15-26, with his presiding over the choosing of Matthias ; in 2:14-16 in his Pentecost speech to Jerusalem ; in 5:1-11 regarding Ananias and Sapphira ; in 9:32-10:48 in the vision of the animals, and experience with Cornelius ; in 11:1-8 as he defends the mission to the gentiles ; in 12:2-19 in his imprisonment, and angelic release. But, in 15:6-29, although he speaks of the mission to the gentiles, it is James who decides, and this is amplified in Galatians 1:18-24. There is also the case of the difference between him, and Paul in Galatians 2:6-21.

In the case of the extract from Matthew, there is a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the rock. It was perceived by St Augustine that the mentioned “rock” refers to Christ. According to Origen, the rock is Peter, and, as Fr John Meyendorff points out, the keys are given to him ; but the believer, in imitating Peter, may receive these keys by imitation. Meyendorff notes that the words of Christ “have a soteriological, but not an institutional, significance. They only affirm that the Christian faith is the faith expressed by Peter on the road to Cæsarea Philippi. ... Thus, when He spoke to Peter, Jesus was underlining the meaning of the faith as the foundation of the Church, rather than organising the Church as guardian of the faith. The whole ecclesiological debate between East and West is thus reducible to the issue of whether the faith depends on Peter, or Peter on the faith. The issue becomes clear when one compares the two concepts of the succession of Peter”. Continuing from this, one may say that this leadership has a particular character, but not universal, nor of the sort more recently claimed by the Bishops of Rome, since there were obviously open debates, and differences among the Apostles, as clearly described by the Apostle Paul. There are other examples of the apparent contradiction between the Apostle Peter’s leadership in such cases, and that of James as shown in Acts 15. Yet, we Orthodox might well understand that the city of Jerusalem was under the authority of James, while Peter had a certain, and different authority over the Twelve, and others which did not interfere with this. Nevertheless, the decree of this council in Jerusalem affected the whole Church. Earlier, it was the Apostle Peter to whom the vision was given, and through whom the Mission to the Gentiles was confirmed, and whose activity produced the council, and its decision, but the decision was proclaimed by James. Jerusalem must be properly considered our Mother Church, but even it subsisted as a dependency on the provincial capital, Cæsarea, until after the fourth century. The leadership of Peter is within a particular context.

The different manners of interpreting these, and other texts, between the Roman Catholics, and the Orthodox are well-known, and it is not useful to repeat more than this. However, there have been contributing factors which led to these differences, not the least of these factors being political situations, and communication problems. The result of these has been such a difference in perception between east, and west that mutual comprehension, despite the best intentions, is difficult to this day. One might say, with tongue in cheek that, like men, and women, Roman Catholics are from Mars, and Orthodox are from Venus. In the west, there has developed the very strong tendency to think linearly, and even compartmentedly, and in the east, the thinking or perception has always been more spherical or holistic. It may be said to be expressed by the very different attitudes towards canons — either as medicine or as law. There is, I believe, some foundation to this comparison, and such a comparison can bring some hope, because men, and women do manage to find a common ground, and unity, despite these differences. Both Churches perceive themselves as pragmatic, but this pragmatism shows itself in very different ways.

There has been a debate about the actual succession of the Roman bishops as being only from Peter, or having begun even before him. But regardless of opinions about this, there is no doubt that the Relics of the Apostle have been a focus of pilgrimage in Rome from the earliest days. The fact that Rome was the capital of the Empire lent an undisputed prestige to this city, and New Rome has inherited, and continued that position since the separation became enduring.

There is an interesting discussion of the Eucharistically-focussed perception of the Bishop in the Early Church by Metropolitan John of Pergamon, Eucharist, Bishop, Church. This fine study essentially says that each diocese, with its bishop, at the Eucharist, itself constitutes the catholic Church, and is complete in itself. It is the Local Church. This completion is, however, not exclusive, but inclusive, because all the dioceses are required by their mutual communion to express visibly their mutual unity in the Body of Christ. Together, the bishops, in their mutual communion, unite their dioceses to one another, and express another, general, aspect of catholicity. And the canons prescribe that all the diocesan bishops, led by the metropolitan, are to do nothing without him, nor is he to do anything without them. To this day, this Eucharistic unity is expressed in the custom that, after the enthronement of each new head of an autocephalous Church, this head journeys to each other Church, and celebrates the Eucharist together with each other head. This unity has been maintained, and balanced in part by the chief of these heads, Old and New Rome, the first among equals. This has been done in chairing assemblies, and serving as final appeal. The term servus servorum Dei would be a fit expression.

The fact that the Papacy became not so much a Petrine Ministry as a Petrine Monarchy by the twelfth century, under the specific circumstances of the revival of the so-called Holy Roman Empire, in conjunction also with the rise of centralised monasticism, and of scholasticism, is a clear demonstration of development far beyond the rôle of the bishop as understood by the Early Church. One of the chief paradoxes in the end of this has been that, not only does the Bishop of Rome not live in his own city, he does not live in the same country as that city. Nevertheless, the historical fact is that the Bishop of Rome has had a central ministry in the life of the whole Church. From early times, he was the “court of final appeal” in disputes among the other local churches.

All of these words aside, the main question to be considered now should likely be: Is the matter of Primacy in general, and Papacy in particular, necessarily a theological matter ? Or is it a pastoral/canonical/administrative matter ? Either way, there is an addressing the need to secure, and maintain the Church’s unity. But the first makes the consideration much more difficult for all. I referred previously to the development of the Bishop of Rome into a monarchical ruler of the West. Petrine ministry in the past has meant, in fact, the severe limitation of diocesan bishops, so as to have made it possible to say that there is really only one bishop, that of Rome, and all others are his auxiliaries. There has been, especially with Vatican II, a great shift away from this coercion to the more traditional understanding of the diocesan bishop. But it must still be asked, what is the rôle of the document Pastor Æternus from Vatican I (1870) ? It does not seem to have been rescinded. It is this document which concretised the ideas of universal jurisdiction, based on a particular interpretation of the previously-mentioned scriptural references. According to Papadakis, this interpretation was greatly developed in the time of Pope Gregory VII, and the other centralising reformers, although the seedling of this plant existed for many centuries previous. One might suggest that the seeds lie in an attempt to establish the Kingdom of Christ on earth, an idea which propels certain persons’ interference during our times in the Middle East. Chapter 3 of Pastor Æternus reaffirms the statements of the Council of Florence in the fourteenth century, that the Bishop of Rome, as prince of the Apostles, has full, universal, ordinary, immediate, and truly episcopal jurisdiction of governing, and ruling the whole Church under obedience. The terminology of Pastor Æternus is not so much pastoral, and medicinal to the Orthodox reader, but rather imperial, and legislative. Chapter 4 on infallible teaching authority ends with a rather different conclusion than might be drawn by the Orthodox from the same sources. The same could be said with regard to the 1896 Encyclical Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII which refines the points of Pastor Æternus. All of this seems to me to be a refining work on the 21 points of Cardinal Humbert’s Dictatus Papæ.

In comparison, we have two very different methods of maintaining ecclesial unity, and stability of doctrine. On the one side, we have the eastern customs of visible concelebrations, and the convening of synods to resolve problems, and correct errors, with disputes being resolved at the level of the heads. On the other side, we have the western development of achieving the same ends less by persuasion than by legislation, and coercive obedience to the head. Does a document such as this still have force, or not, and if not, how and why ?

If we are at this level of consideration, then this concern must be addressed, and resolved first.

I have already been addressing the administrative-pastoral side of things in previous words. If this consideration of primacy is at this practical level of consideration, there is more room for discussion, and adjustment of perception, even resolution. I found Patrick Granfield’s The Limits of the Papacy from 1987 an interesting self-study which, in some ways, showed a similar appreciation to that of the Orthodox about the development of matters, and our agreed purpose of unity, and court-of-appeal, but he cannot avoid using the characteristic juridical language. Nevertheless, he demonstrates how Vatican II, for instance, moderated the interpretation of the decrees of Vatican I, and shows how the Pope is to be considered as acting according to previous teaching, but in a more conciliar, and consultative manner. But, unlike the Orthodox way, the Pope retains “primacy of ordinary power over all particular Churches”, has “the sole competency to erect particular Churches”; he limits the authority of local diocesan bishops; he is the only convener of all Synods, and “the Pope alone can convoke an ecumenical council, preside over it, transfer, suspend or dissolve it, and approve its decrees. The decrees of an ecumenical council do not have obligatory force unless they are approved by the Pope together with the Fathers of the council and are confirmed by the Pope and promulgated by his order.” On the other hand, this particular last series of powers addresses the lack of an emperor to convene a general council, something lacking for over 500 years. He demonstrates that there are adjustments, and developments within the Roman Catholic household.

Returning to the words of Fr John Meyendorff, he cites St Cyprian of Carthage, who says that the See of Peter belongs, in each local church, to the bishop. This idea is repeated by St Gregory of Nyssa, and Pseudo-Dionysius. “Peter’s succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual.” From this perspective, the East does not well comprehend the later developed western understanding of papacy. The general perception of the East is that the Church recognises “the fulness of catholicity in each local Church, in the sense in which the Apostolic Fathers could speak...”. For the East-Romans: “Consensus of bishops, and not the authority of one particular bishop, was for them the highest possible sign of truth. Hence their constant insistence on the authority of the councils, and their inability to understand the Roman concept of the papacy”. Primacy was understood to be a matter for conciliar legislation. Based on the idea of apostolic foundation, the Orthodox understand that, because of the missionary work of the various apostles, many Churches can claim apostolic foundation, but that need not imply any jurisdictional claim. As Meyendorff underlines, the prestige of the ancient patriarchates, including, and especially Rome, and New Rome, was derived from their civil importance. He cites Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon: “The Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the imperial city. And one hundred and fifty most religious bishops, actuated by the same considerations, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome, justly judging that the city, which is honoured with the presence of the emperor and the senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should, in ecclesiastical matters also, be magnified as she is, and rank next after her”. Meyendorff recognises what was lacking at the time of schism, and it is this same requirement that must guide our current considerations, and deliberations: “mutual respect and trust, which alone ... permit an authentic theological dialogue”.

The need for primacy, and an order of primacy is obvious, and the Orthodox of the east struggle even now to find ways to make our inheritance fit the needs of the Church in these days of many changed, and rapidly changing conditions. The dialogue with Rome on this subject could be fruitful for us, even if we take a long time to resolve the problem, or even if we, God forbid, do not. At the present, the various regional autocephalous Churches have varied ecclesiological expressions of primacy, depending in part on local historical, cultural, and social conditions. The more decentralised form has a good example in the Church in Greece, and in Romania. The more centralised form has a good example in the Church in Russia. The Coptic Church is even more centralised.

Regardless of all these observations, we Orthodox may together say that we can properly understand primacy only in one context, and that this will have to be a part of our consciousness as we proceed. In the context of repentance, the model for primacy in the Church must, following Christ, be the kenotic, that is self-emptying hierarchical order of the Most Holy Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. There cannot be room for any understanding of primacy based on supremacy of power. This is so, because in our understanding the use of power, and coercion is associated with evil. One need only look at the healing methods of the Twelve Step programme, and the bad results of manipulation for a secular confirmation of this important understanding.

And so, closing after too many words, I say that in the context of self-emptying, and impartial Christian love, of mutual respect, and mutual repentance, we may proceed with our discussion of this important subject, praying that we are sensitive to the directing of the Holy Spirit towards an honest, and Christ-given reconciliation.

Primary Sources:

The Scriptures

Granfield, P, The Limits of the Papacy

Haugh, R, Photius and the Carolingians

Meyendorff, J, Byzantine Theology

Meyendorff, J, Rome, Byzantium, Moscow

Papadakis, A, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy

Zizioulas, John, Eucharist, Bishop, Church

† Archdiocese of Canada - Orthodox Church in America