Baptism of Converts

There is a pressing issue on how converts are to be received into the Church from various groups. The main area of varying opinion is the reception of converts who received a baptism in the name of the Trinity, especially from Anglicans or Roman Catholics. The seem to be two contrasting positions with those who insist on not rebaptising and those who do, e.g. Mt Athos. There is also a third position that allows for either approach: that is rebaptising is acceptable, and generally preferred, but not rebaptising may be acceptable as an economy provided certain conditions have been met.

Which position(s) conform to the Sacred Tradition? Looking through the debates and variety of views held in the early Church in which one party held that we should not rebaptise, St Stephen and St Leo the Great, Popes of Rome, and the other that we should, St Cyprian of Carthage and St Firmillian. St Basil the Great recommends maintaining the custom of the local Church but favours rebaptism and that the form of baptism be at least that of the Church in all points of faith. The Saints seem to contract themselves on a very serious matter. Is there a reconciliation of them or a common census to the matter by the Church? The answer is yes, although one that may not please those looking for a simple fixed approach.

Firstly, the Fathers accepted the Canon and hence arguments for St Cyprian of Carthage and thus rejected the argument of the Popes of Rome that insisted that the form of baptism must not be repeated because it can only be given once even though it does not confer any grace or salvation to those receiving the form outside the Church. The Fathers held that the one Baptism of the Church is the one conferred by a Priest of the Church not merely of the form. Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit and hence no Priesthood and so no baptism, that is no baptism that brings man to be a son of God. (Note: the dependance of baptism of the Priesthood; it is not a function of the laity.) Also, rejected by both St Cyprian and St Leo is any effect of baptism outside the Church, at best the baptism is an empty form and nothing more. There was no sense that a baptism outside the Church caused the baptised to be “born again” nor to receive forgiveness of sins. Such a view is heretical and a denial of the Church and the mystery of one baptism.

However, the Fathers did not accept the position of St Cyprian without qualification. The Church, i.e. Christ, permitted converts from some heresies to be received only with Chrismation, i.e. by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus, while the Fathers rejected that the form could not be repeated by the Church, they accepted that the form could be received by the Church without repetition in certain cases and for the matter of economy. This is the position of St Basil the Great. This meant that the practices of those would insisted on not rebaptising did not affect the souls of those being received by Chrismation only and also enable certain converts of certain groups to be accepted without baptism, where there could be uncertainty about who baptised them but they knew that they received the form of baptism.

Where does this leave us with the converts of today? Canonically, all converts need to be baptised if they are not within the excepted groups mentioned by the Fathers in the Canons. However, following St Basil there is room for economy to be used in particular cases, such for example the Roman Catholics and this economy was used by various Fathers at times. This economy though does depend on the form of baptism applied outside the Church to be the same as that of the Church and this is the major issue regarding the present forms of baptism used outside the Church, which are no longer exactly as the Church baptises. Although, there is still sufficient connection that the form could be accepted being done in the Church by economy.

Although, as stated earlier, things are a bit vague regarding the limits of economy, i.e. the meaning of the same in all aspects of the faith, it would seem that the best option is to baptise all converts, excepting perhaps those from Uniate or recent schisms, who have exactly the same form of baptism. There is some room for those who are obstinate about already receiving a baptism to be received by Chrismation but there should be no rule that all members of a particular group should not be baptised on entering the Church. Also, any acceptance of some effect of the baptism outside the Church, that is outside the jurisdictions of canonical Orthodox Bishops, as somehow giving the baptised some connection to the Church should be rejected. This was thoroughly rejected by St Cyprian, whose the Fathers in the Ecumenical Councils accepted. There is no Priesthood outside the Church and hence no baptism, apart from empty form and this has been the consistent teaching of the Fathers both Eastern and Western.

The Court

Why the Court? This is an English means of expressing the Greek word transliterated as Bema. It is often translated judgement seat or tribunal. I will use Court, though, because it captures a range of meanings that can be understood in the Greek.

Why mention the Court? The area of Orthodox Temples were the Altar is located is named Bema in Greek. Why is this area called Bema? Because it is the Holy of holies, the symbol of the dwelling of God and the centre of His reign. Thus, the area is also defined by something other than the Altar, even though it is correct to define it by the Altar. A royal court is defined by the throne upon which we identify the sovereign. Thus also the Court of a Christian temple is identified by the throne. The throne is what chiefly identifes this area of the temple, not the Altar, which has is set before the throne, thus fulfilling the mystery of the dispensation of Christ.

So, when we build temples we must place a throne in this area and an altar before it, so it truly becomes the symbol of the dwelling and reign of God. It is not the Cross that is to be located at the eastern end but the Throne.

One place, one church

There is one Church. In the Old Testament this was realised with one place of worship. In the New Testament worship is permitted in any place. However, to maintain the mystery of one Church, only one church may worship in each place. The Church is centred on her Bishop, that is on Christ, who is one: one Christ, one Bishop. So, in each place there is only one Bishop.

The “area” of a place can only be defined by territory. This realises that the Church is in the world; it has a definable physical presence and location. This presence cannot be defined by other catagories. All mankind is one in Christ; there is neither Greek nor Jew. To define a church by human categories such as language, culture or ethnicity is to deny the union of all in Christ that transcends all human distinctions. It would be a human organisation defined by the human categories.

So, the present situation with Orthodox churches those Bishops have jurisdictions that are not only defined by exclusive territorial areas is in effect a denial of the Church. It is a situation that can only be justified by an heretical doctrine of the Church.

May we quickly repent of such organisation and order the churches as they should be by territories encompassing all Orthodox believers regardless of their human distinctions and trust that the one Christ is with each Bishop regardless on his language, ethnicity or other such distinction. As regarding liturgcal usages these are the right of the Bishop by better set by a region of Bishops, such as in a particular country, so that there may be consistency of practice.

May we also remember the tradition of order among the Bishops that was established to bring unity among the Bishops not by authority but by consensus. Also, none of the Bishops or Patriarches should act outside his territory with the consent of all.

Canon Law – Can it change?

Here is a copy of a Canon Law essay that was recently submitted and received a distinction. It takes what may be described as a position of supporting an unchanging continuation of the Canons. This position is very hard to maintain due to the evidence. The relationship between the rhetoric of the Canons and the practical dealing with the Canons is difficult to reconcile. The essay is an attempt to substantiate the rhetoric more closely in trying to explain the practice in a manner that equates with the rhetoric of unchanging Canons. However, the marker found some of the arguments rather forced and unconvincing and even perhaps seemingly contradictory. Nevertheless, he commented that the essay does bring to the fore that the works of many modern writers on the subject have looked at the practice of change and from this have either dismissed or interpreted that rhetoric to make it of little effect and that this approach is not consistent with the tradition.

So, the essay is here, with its weaknesses, to provide some thoughts on the issues from a position seeking to remain faithful to the rhetoric by harmonising this with the historical practice. It is also a warning to those who hope or believe that another Ecumenical Council can make wide sweeping changes to the Church’s Canon Law or to its traditions.

I look forward to any comments or feedback to help develop understanding of these issues, which still require much theoretical work to come to a satisfactory answer.

Canon Law

Filioque essay

I have attached a paper written for my Master’s Degree entitled: “Discuss the filioque in the background of Orthodox ecclesiology, the theology of deification and the Orthodox Biblical exegetical methodology.” It received a good mark but there were questions as to how well is represents the Orthodox view on things. Feel free to raise any critiques of it.
Themes in Orthodox Theology

God’s desire for unity

John 17 is often sited for the cause of the ecumenical movements desire for reconciliation of “Christians”. It is true that Christ said these things but when the Scriptures are considered closely then it appears that the ecumenical movement has taken the words out of context.The unity that Christ desired in firstly grounded in Faith (John 17: 8-9) and in Himself, which also unites one into the Trinity (John 17:21-26). It is not a desire for all people to be united as an end in itself but all to be united in Himself. Those in Him are one because He is one. Thus unity is found not in humans agreeing with each other but in agreeing with Christ.

This agreement with Christ is through faith. This does not mean only the act of believing itself but also what one believes. One may be sincere and faithful in one’s belief but if one does not believe in Christ then such a belief is of no avail. Thus, union with Christ requires a union of faith, being of one mind and believing the same thing, the faith of Christ.

The Fathers of the Church summarised this Faith in the Creed, or the “Faith”. The Nicene-Constantinoplian Faith (as the Greek word for Creed is literally translated.) Thus, to accept the Faith of Christ and to be united to Him requires one to accept this Faith as it is without adding to it or subtracting from it. Unfortunately, the western Churches, added to this Faith and began to confess something different from the Faith of the Church. Eventually, when they showed themselves entrenched in the proclamation of this different Faith they became separated from Christ.

Being separated from Christ means separation from the Church and from the Holy Spirit. Even though those in many of these groups are referred to as “Christians” and their gathering/organisations are called “churches”, they are not properly so unless they are united to Christ, sharing one Faith with Him and with those whom also share this Faith. Because the Church on earth is the Incarnate presence of Christ, then it is seen in its physical presence that is linked through the laying on of hands, baptism and the Eucharist. Without the participation in these there is no participation in the Church. Those who have broken the physical connection with the Church must, along with accepting the Faith of the Church, also be physically reunited with the Church before being reunited with her. So, groups outside the Church cannot reunite with the Church by a mere confession of the Faith but they must each personally be physically brought back in the Church and established in the Church with a properly ordained Priest under a recognised Bishop.

On these grounds, the talk of reunion with those groups outside the Church, such as the various Protestant Churches, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church, is a mistaken, if it is based on a premise that these bodies are real Churches in Christ between whom there has somehow been a rift rather than a cutting off. Rather, it must be understood that a “reunion” of those other churches, also called “Christian churches”, can only come about not through an agreed declaration of faith that is acceptable to all within their present “traditions”, as if these are all different expressions of the one Tradition, but through repentance and the agreement with the Faith of the Church, abandoning their own “traditions” and accepting those of the Church. Each person so “reuniting” (“uniting” is a better term because almost all such persons have never been united personally to Christ, the Church) with the Church must be physically established in the Church through baptism, or perhaps at least the physical anointing of chrismation as an act of economy once they declare the Faith of the Church and renounce errors. There can be no corporate “reunion” because outside of Christ there is no true unity in a church but rather a collection of individuals. Only in Christ is the Church truly united and one body.

So, God does desire union, but in Himself, in Christ and in His faith, in accepting His words. Christ prays for those accepting His words and not for the world. Those bodies separated from the Church are not churches in the true sense of the word and Christ does not desire the union of such groups as an end in itself but rather repentance and coming to Him to be united to the Church. There is a requirement for the Church to accept those who desire to repent but none to unite with other groups who claim to be Christian and even hold many of the same beliefs. Rather it is to speak the truth clearly in love to keep open the way for repentance, while rejecting those who refuse to repent of error as sons of perdition because in this state they are indeed bound for eternal perdition being apart from Christ; it isn’t “nice” but it is the reality. Christ’s love requires that the errors need to be identified in discussions and the truth made clear to allow repentance. Identifying common areas of faith helps to ground teaching of understanding towards the truth but it is the errors that have caused the division and these need to be constantly noted and shown for what they are. One must accept what the Church, Christ, accepts and reject what the Church, Christ, rejects. Again, it is of no avail to accept what the Church accepts but fail to reject what she rejects, that is leaving those groups persisting in error and joining the Church, the pillar of the Truth.

Primacy in the Church- further points

‘Again, what did St. Gregory the Great mean when he wrote that “Rome, Alexandria and Antioch are one see of Peter”? Likewise, when the patriarch of Constantinople signed the Formula of Hormisdas, he added to his signature, “We define that Old Rome and New Rome are one see of Peter”.’

The Patriarchates of Alexandra and Antioch are the centres of unity for the churches in Africa and the East respectively. They therefore manifest the Petrine principle in the context of their jurisdictional regions. So they can rightly be considered Sees of Peter in the sense of their role within their regions and also due to their history with the presence of St Peter in Antioch and of St Mark, St Peter’s disciple, in Alexandra. From the principle that the Church is one and the unity is one then both the Sees of Alexandra and Antioch are one as they are also one with Rome. There are not three centres of unity in the Church but one that is manifested completely in each of the three Sees with Rome, as the Imperial capital being the principal of these. (There is a strong parallel with Trinitarian Theology here. I believe that without a correct understanding of the Trinity it is impossible to understand the structure of the Church correctly because the same understanding of One God in three Persons is needed to understand One Church in many churches, one See of Peter in a number of Sees of Peter. The divergence of Roman Catholic and Orthodox thoughts on Church structure I believe parallel their divergence in Trinitarian theology.)

The Sees of Rome and New Rome are both the See of Rome in principle. The See of Old Rome comes first in time and New Rome is in a sense an “image” of Old Rome, like her in all aspects, although honouring her as the source. They are one very closely paralleling that the Father and the Son are one. When honour is given to the See of Rome it equally applies to New Rome. The See of Rome prevailing against the gates of Hades has continued to be true (from an Orthodox perspective) in New Rome, which after some troubles in its relatively early years has remained steadfastly orthodox, excepting a couple of short lived moments such as was suffered by Old Rome with Pope Honorius. (It is the See that is to prevail, not necessarily any particular Bishop of that See. It appears to me that the Fathers also considered that the Roman would prevail to the end of time. This hasn’t happened with the Roman Empire with Rome as its capital but it can be argued that the principle of the Empire, especially Pax Romana, has continued to this day. I think that the same defence of the Fathers could also be used in the case of the Roman See prevailing.)

On the issue of remaining in communion with the See of the Old Rome, it is true that one is required to do so, if Old Rome remains true to the Faith. She is the principle of unity for the Church, she is wholly the Church and so to break communion with her is to break communion with the Church. On the latter part this can be said of any and all of the Sees, which are all equally the whole Church, if they remain within the Faith. Breaking communion with any church in Christ is to break communion with Christ, Who is wholly present in each church. Rome, as the centre of unity for the world, carries a special significance in the issue of unity and rightly the Saints make their comments about unity with Rome. However, this assumes that Rome remains a church and in Christ, which can be broken with heresy (I believe that free-will is never overridden and any person or group of people can fall into heresy; no-one is above this.) Also, this unity is equally manifest with unity to the church of New Rome. (Note: I believe that the Patriarchs of Constantinople speak in deference to the Popes of Rome in humility similarly as the Son speaks as such of the Father without diminishing His essential equality with the Father. Nevertheless, the Patriarchs of New Rome take boldly the title “Ecumenical” even with the protestations of old Rome.)

More thoughts on Petrine Primacy

More thoughts that overlap with earlier posts but perhaps a a little to the thoughts.

St Peter was the Prince and leader of the Apostles, there is no doubt about this. Also, there are leading Sees in the Church, which all, except Constantinople and Jerusalem, lay direct claim to being Sees of Peter and rightly so. Antioch and Alexandra, through St Mark, are connected to St Peter because they are Sees of Primacy and hence Sees of Peter. These Sees of Primacy are important for the unity and world wide witness of the Church. The See of Rome is the chief of these Sees and so sums up all of them in one, without excluding the privileges of the other Sees. The comments posted are quite in keeping with Orthodox ecclesiology. Also, the See of Rome, or the chief See of Primacy will not fail, also acceptable and Orthodox. In fact, from an Orthodox perspective, apart from Rome, all the primary Sees are still Orthodox (Catholic) today. From a Roman perspective, it must be said how to explain that all the other Sees have fallen for so long and not only for a few years/decades as in previous cases before the “Schism of 1054?.

Has Rome indeed fallen? For the Orthodox the answer is in a sense yes, the Old Rome fell, but in the main sense no because the See of Rome continues in New Rome, which remains the See of Peter in the Church. New Rome cannot claim to be a See founded by Peter as a See of Primacy because in the apostolic times it was not worthy or suitable for such a place but with Constantine founding a new capital there, it needed to share the Primacy with Rome because it too became the city of the world.

If it was possible for St Paul to become a Prince of the Apostles first equal with St Peter without negating St Peter being the focus of unity and leadership, two Princes in one Prince, then it is possible for New Rome to share equality with Old Rome without negating Old Rome being the focus of unity and leadership. It shares the one leadership of Old Rome, which continues to be named as such even though in practice there are two equal heads.

So, I would argue that the statements posted about Rome can stand well in Orthodoxy without any need to hide them under the carpet. Although, from my reading of the histories of the Councils, it was the Roman Emperor in the East who called the Ecumenical Councils and based them around the effective Capital of the Empire New Rome, the Patriarch of which was quite rightly deserving of the title Ecumenical by the late Sixth/Seventh Century.

What is meant by Petrine primacy? For myself it is the principle of a “single” point of unity and leadership to manifest the unity of the Church. This point can be manifested at various levels from regional Metropolis Sees to Patriarchal Sees and then “universally” in Rome. Because Peter was the Prince of the Apostolic Order, he is the icon or type of this principle and, as in all matters of Christian praxis, icon and types are incarnated in practical reality so Peter physically goes to Rome, because it is the Capital of the Empire, to establish it by his presence rather than merely proclaiming the See from elsewhere because of its position. The Sees of Alexandria and Antioch also have a similar connection to Peter because they have Petrine Primacy in their own Patriarchates. (Note: this principle of unity is different from that of a Bishop within a diocese because it is an order inter-Sees rather than intra-See, so I am not so strong on talking of Petrine Primacy belonging to every Bishop but neither do I exclude it to some degree.) Also, as William Tighe pointed out from St Leo, once the position of primacy becomes established in the Church it is irrevocable; this also applies to the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch. (Jerusalem being a special case). (Note: what is meant by irrevocable needs to be examined but whatever irrevocability is applied to Rome must also be used for Alexandria and Antioch. Thus if irrevocability means never falling away from the Church then this must also be the case for Alexandria and Antioch.)

Now Constantinople is an interesting case. It becomes 300 years after the Apostles the Capital of the Empire. Following Apostolic Tradition it should be a See of Primacy but it also cannot change the established order of the Tradition of the Church. I understand that the solution of the Fathers was to make Constantinople one with Rome as in theory Old Rome and New Rome were one Capital in two locations. Because the name is one it remains with the first and is derived from the first so Constantinople is rightly second in reference to Rome but in the overall order it is first equal with Rome, so not displacing Alexandria as the second in order. When the Fathers speak of having like privileges as Rome it also includes the principle of Petrine Primacy, although historical necessity precluded the presence of Peter initially. (Note: Constantinople traces itself back to St Andrew, the first called and the brother of Peter, to establish Apostolic connection, although I am not sure that this is necessary, although there may be something more in this than I am aware. I am happy with the analogy of St Paul, who was not properly qualified as an Apostle but nevertheless becomes first equal with Peter as Prince of the Apostles, interestingly only Peter’s name is used for the primacy even though both were Princes and fathers of the See in Rome; this ties in with later use of one name for two.) Thus Constantinople is Rome in another location. Petrine Primacy does not “transfer” with the Fall of Rome but is inherently part of Constantinople’s Patriarchy and Primacy. (Nevertheless, in humility the Patriarchs of Constantinople always refer to Old Rome in deference as the “first” See, even though taking the title “Ecumenical”.)

I believe that the issue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox is how to understand Petrine Primacy. The history of Constantinople tends to suggest a monarchal form of Primacy closer to Rome than some may suggest. Nevertheless, I believe that in the East there was a clear sense, even if in practice infringed often, that even Rome or Constantiople could not directly interfere within the jurisdictions of other Sees of Primacy, such as other Patriarchates or even within regions of a Metropolis, even if they appoint the Metropolitan Bishop themselves. This also goes to interference within Dioceses by Metropolitans or Patriarchs. Thus each “level” of headship and unity does not negate the effective headship and unity of each “level” but is rather to harmonise and unite them. So, I think, with a very poor amount of reading on the matter, that the Eastern Patriarchs were not concerned with claims of Primacy as such but with claims of internal jurisdiction within other Patriarchal jurisdictions and thus negating the “real” primacy of these jurisdictions. Even Rome had its own area of Patriarchal jurisdiction, Patriarch of the West, only within which it could exercise that form of control. This understanding, I think, was at least in historical practice the understood relationships of all the Patriarchs including Rome before the Schism (at least as a symbolic demarkation line.)

Nevertheless, Rome, and Constantinople, did/do carry privileges that transcend other Patriarchates and these are those exercised universally, without infringing on the “rights” of Patriarchs because they are in a sense extra-Patriarchal. (I have not really considered the actual privileges apart from the final courts of appeal and focus of mission outside other Patriarchal boundaries. Perhaps those privileges that are not strictly able to be exercised completely within a territorial boundary.)

Because Constantinople is Rome, the belief that Rome would never fail is still true for Orthodox even though Old Rome may have fallen. The principle is maintained even if its original incarnation may have ceased, although there is still an incarnation of the principle. (Similarly the Fathers thought that Rome as secular Empire would never fall until the Antichrist was to appear. The original incarnation of Rome has fallen but the principle can be argued to continue incarnated within other Empires, even carrying the symbols, such of Russia or perhaps the Holy Roman Empire and, although it may not think of itself as such, the United States can be said to maintain the principle today. So, a particular incarnation of a See does not necessarily need to remain for the principle to be maintained but it must nevertheless be validly incarnate somewhere.)

It is amazing that all the Patriarchates are still in practical existence, although maybe only just so. The fact that, from the Orthodox perspective, Rome may have fallen into heresy has not broken any Divine promises. (Perhaps, Divine foresight knew of this and established Constantinople to ensure the continuation.) I think that Roman Catholics have a more difficult job of explaining the fall of Constantinople, Alexandra, Antioch and Jerusalem. One may be ecumenical and say that they have never actually left the Church of Rome, even with all the problems, but I must say that the history of relationships between the Churches does not support that the vast majority of earlier generations acted in this belief, so it must be doubted whether this can really be the case. In some ways the actions of Old Rome tend to see a greater fall than the actions of New Rome. New Rome has never established an Orthodox Bishop of Rome whereas there is a “Latin” Patriarchate in Jerusalem assumes that the Orthodox Patriarch is not truly the “Catholic” Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Whether the Petrine Primacy is with the consciousness of Constantinople as such I am not sure. The principle of the Primacy, I believe, is within the consciousness of Constantinople and perhaps the name, as such, has not been regularly used to avoid confusion with the developed doctrine on the matter in Old Rome. (This also applies to the name Catholic, which is still in the Orthodox consciousness even if not used regularly to avoid confusion.) The reason for my belief is the continued use of the title Ecumenical, which has universal connotations and, if I remember correctly, were behind the objections of St Gregory I of Rome on the use of the name, by St John the Faster of Constantinople. (Excuse me if my historical memory may be a little out here.) This title would only be appropriate if one considered that they had the sort of status that would be appropriately named as Petrine.

Perhaps my thoughts are only theory with no real basis in tradition but I hope that they may have some benefit in trying to explain the evidence available both Western and Eastern.

Primacy remains in the Orthodox Church

The Church has never lost this See of Primacy. Rome, New Rome, remains the See of Primacy in the Church. The Church lost nothing with the fall of Rome, historically and spiritually.

Primacy in the Church- a model

I have also seen the difference in thinking about primacy in Rome especially that seems to go right back to at least the third century. This appears to be different to modern Orthodox opinions on the matter. Is this the beginning of a development of thought that would eventually lead to the schism and was a wrong opinion in western thinking that was not yet developed to a heretical level, or was it something “Orthodox” that has been a little lost in the East because of the consequences of the Roman development of the doctrine?

I think that there is an importance of primacy in Orthodox(Catholic) thought. This primacy is properly referred to as Petrine Primacy and Rome is certainly a centre of this primacy. I also believe that the structures of the Church as regulated in the Canons are not merely practical implementations but reflect and maintain important theological understandings of the Church.

This is that there is one Bishop, who is Christ. All Bishops are in a Mystery the concrete presence of Christ in the Church in His capacity as “high priest”, “teacher” and “master”. There is no Christ of Christ and rightly no Bishop of Bishops. The Roman Catholic system gives the impression, whether or not it is formally taught, that the Pope has an exclusive, or greater, manifestation of Christ compared to the other Bishops; he is set apart as “The” Vicar of Christ and somehow a “Christ of Christs” or Bishop of Bishops.

Having said the above, it may be asked how do we have a multitude of Bishops if there is only one Bishop? The answer, I believe, comes from primacy. All Bishops are the same being from the same Christ. However, Christ gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom alone (initially but later to all the Apostles) to show that gift is one and given wholly to one. It is not given in parts to a team of Apostles but it is given whole to one. This signifies that there is one Bishopric not many different Bishoprics. However, it would be impractical for one man to physically oversee the whole Church in the world so there are appointed many Bishops to do this, all sharing the whole gift as did Peter and succeeding him in holding the keys.

To ensure that the oneness of the Bishopric is maintained Bishops are organised into groups with a definite head so that they speak and act as one. The head gives this focus, although he is not above the others and acts not alone but with their unanimous consent (majority voting is a system of economy for the weaknesses of man but not the true modus operandi of the group, which is to act all as one). These groups are then structured to one which is at the head of the world, i.e. the Bishop of Rome as the centre and voice of Church unity. He is located where the whole world looks, the capital of the Empire, (although this wasn’t practically true; it carried this sense for the Roman people and the symbolism of the position is what is important) and he reflects to the world the Bishopric of Christ. When the Empire gains another capital the Church follows this and appoints another centre of Church unity equal to Rome, although Rome is respected in age. Constantinople does not replace Alexandria as second but rather shares first place with Rome as the New Rome. It shares the same place as Rome but reflects the unity of the Church to the Eastern Empire as Rome does to the West. This models Peter and Paul. Paul who joins the Apostles later shares the place with Peter as the chief Apostles the centre of unity of the Apostles. Peter displays this to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. Both share the same headship although Peter maintains the honour of time and the Primacy is named from him. This division into two does not negate the primacy of one but helps to remind us that the unity is Christ and not the human establishment in itself.

This primacy is not about internal jurisdiction within Dioceses but about the witness and action of the Church beyond these boundaries. It is right for Rome and Constantinople to supervise missions outside the territories defined for other Bishops, regions, or Patriarchates. Their jurisdiction is universal but only as a point of appeal and supervision of matters pertaining to the witness of the Church in general when the Church needs to speak as with one voice and mouth. It does not mean jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of other Bishops, groups or Patriarchates but only on matters of world wide concern with the consent of all other Bishops (through the tiered structure).

It is natural for other churches to model themselves on these universal witnesses of the Church. This witness is of the whole See and not only the Bishop. The primacy is found in the See and not the Bishop himself, although the Bishop being the head of his See is the focus of the witness. So, other churches soon model their liturgies and church practices on these central Sees. The Liturgy becomes uniform as do forms of music and art. Uniformity is not necessary in these matters but the oneness of the Church tends to bring this about and part of the maturity of the Church. (I believe it is wrong to diversify what is now uniform in the Church because there was variety in the early Church; variety is not wrong but I believe that it is not the mature way of the Church.)

Although, the political reasons of the granting of Primacy have gone the structure, decided by the Fathers under inspiration of the Spirit to structure the Church as Christ would have it, remains until the return of Christ who is the same yesterday, today and forever and who doesn’t change His mind ordering one thing and then another, although He allows for concessions due to human weaknesses. Free-will is always paramount and Bishops and even entire Sees can fall into heresy, so there is no guarantee that one of the Sees of Primacy will always be in the Church, although I think there is some special grace in this and somehow one or the other of the Sees of Rome or New Rome has remained faithful to Christ most of the time.

So, each Bishop contains the fullness of Christ in the Mystery of the Bishop and yet one Bishop is shown forth to the world to demonstrate that the Church is one with one Bishopric. This Bishop does so because he is a Bishop just like the others but because he is (was) at the centre of the world (Empire) and he carries the primacy demonstrating the oneness of the Bishopric and the Church. The Church is not an amalgamation of many parts neither is it reduced to one concrete See but it is one and the same throughout the world. This means that all local churches are equal but also that one can be chosen from the rest and shown to the world as the “ideal and complete” church, truly representative of all the churches and of the Church.

Well, this is my opinion on the matter of primacy. I am not sure if the ideas are fully coherent but it is a solution that I have been working on to understand and incorporate all the Fathers western and eastern without having to discard any of the opinions. The system has been abuse over the centuries and misunderstood for the sake of power etc but I believe it remains, at least in the books, as a testimony of the true nature of the Church which is One and yet manifested in many.