You should understand that the head of the Apostles was Saint Peter, to whom Christ said, “You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.” After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, “Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.” In another passage, he said to him, “Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.” Do you not see that Saint Peter is the foundation of the Church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them?
As for Christ’s words, “I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them”, we do not think that he meant Saint Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of Saint Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, “I am with you always, until the end of the age”, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to Saint Peter, “Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost”, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.
Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the Apostles it was Saint Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no Apostle who fell and needed Saint Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only Saint Peter himself, this person causes the Church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of Saint Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the Church that came from Satan after the Apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the Church only after the death of the Apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the Gospel only Saint Peter, the Church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly “the gates of hell”, which Christ said would not overcome the Church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of Saint Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.
– From On the Councils by Theodore Abu Qurrah, Bishop of Haran, Syria (+820)
As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of Saint Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the Church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever.
– From On the Death of Christ by the same author
Source: Theodore Abu Qurrah. John C. Lamoreaux, translator. (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2005), pp. 68-69; 128.
“Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of Saint Peter, that is, Rome.”
This strikes me as a distinctly personal interpretation, so individualistic as to serve as a precursor to the ultra-indivudalism of protestantistm.
Stephen – Could you elaborate?
As I read the passage you posted, I thought it had a sound, logical, wholistic flow and sense to it, and then, as if out of nowhere comes this hypothesis that seems completely out of context, and one filled with hubris. “Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of Saint Peter, that is, Rome.” “To know” what Christ meant is a pretty bold statement, especially if one speaks of things that have no connection to communal prayer, especially that of the Divine Liturgy.
Whether it comes from a need to always project one’s own interpretation onto others, or as a way to curry favor, or to advance some other such agenda I don’t know; but it always seems to be a characteristic of the spirit of “reformers”, be they of the ninth or nineteenth centuries.
Stephen: Your comment might be a bit more persuasive if these ninth-century passages were isolated cases. But, as similar passages can be produced from the Fathers, including those who lived much earlier, well, your critique loses its force, I’d say.
Surely you are not suggesting that the notion that Peter reigned in his successors at Rome was a novel idea originating in the ninth century? Such a claim is easily refuted, my friend.
Diane
“To know” what Christ meant is a pretty bold statement, especially if one speaks of things that have no connection to communal prayer, especially that of the Divine Liturgy.
OTOH…Saint Paul said, “We have the mind of Christ.” 🙂
Stephen –
I have to admit that I was taken aback with your response. Forgive me for saying so, but it seems like a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. My intention is not to play “gotcha” with Orthodox commenters. My intention is to stimulate honest discussion about some things that I have found that do not exactly seem kosher according standard Orthodox accounts of church history and ecclesiology.
You’ve given your explanation for the problem of Abu Qurrah’s seemingly very pro-papal statements, but in an attempt to shore up the standard Orthodox account of the Byzantine/Eastern consensus on papal primacy, I think you may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Theodore Abu Qurrah was an Orthodox bishop, and is highly revered by Antiochian Orthodox even today. Do any other Orthodox readers endorse the picture of Abu Qurrah as a “reformer” and papal lackey with an agenda to spread propaganda “filled with hubris”? I doubt that most Orthodox could wholeheartedly endorse his statements, but I also doubt that they would be so harsh about his character and ascribe to him such subversive motives.
I admit that I don’t understand the comment about Abu Qurrah speaking of “things that have no connection to communal prayer, especially that of the Divine Liturgy.” I don’t know; have you ever read the Byzantine hymnography for, say, the Feasts of Ss. Peter and Paul, St. Sylvester, or St. Leo the Great? Personally I find it hard to fit the Orthodox polemical take on papal primacy with the sorts of assertions made in these official liturgical texts.
Lastly, based on my own studies, I don’t think that Abu Qurrah’s statements about Peter and Rome are out-of-place at all in his early medieval Byzantine-Syrian context. One can find very similar pro-Petrine, pro-Roman statements in the writings of revered Eastern Orthodox figures of the period such as Maximos the Confessor or Theodore the Studite.
There’s also this fascinating volume about early Syrian-Antiochian Fathers and their take on Peter and Rome. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Abu Qurrah may have simply been tapping into a stream of thought already present in his Syriac Christian tradition for centuries.
In 2003 I had the pleasure of hearing an Assyrian bishop (a bishop of the Church of the East, the so-called “Nestorian” Church) speak about the role of Peter as presented in Syriac, and particularly East Syriac devotional, exegetical and liturgical texts. Among the striking things that he asserted were (1) that in the Syriac tradition it is clear that the “Rock” of Matthew 16 upon which the Church is to be built is Peter, Peter himself, not Peter’s faith, (2) that some of these texts characterize Peter as the “chief” and “leader” of the apostles and of the Church and (3) that these texts make it clear that Rome is, in a unique way, Peter’s Church. He also spoke about how the Assyrian Catholicos-Patriarch’s authority has always been “quasi-papal” or “papal-like” and not “synodical” as with the Orthodox: there is no appeal against the Patriarch’s decisions, and no synod has the right to overrule his decisions or to depose him, even in the case malfeasance (e.g., when Mar Eshai XXII Shimun [1908-1975], Patriarch since the age of 12 in 1920 [the patriarchate passed hereditarily from uncle to nephew ever since 1450] married a woman 35 years his junior in 1973 [deacons and priests in the Assyrian Church can marry or, if widowed, remarry after ordination as well as before, but bishops must be celibate] and refused to heed the demands of other bishops and many clergy that he resign, the opponents withdrew their demand; Mar Shimun was shot dead at his front door by an angry member of his church in November 1975, after which the hereditary descent of the patriarchate was abolished by the bishops).
In my opinion these statements are quite at home in the Catholic ecclesiology as maintained in Orthodox Churches. 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.
Father Patrick –
Thanks for giving us your balanced take!
I am a bit surprised at the argument that the Petrine primacy has been transferred to Constantinople as the “New Rome.” I must admit that I have never heard this argument from an Orthodox before.
I know the Orthodox argument that Rome’s primacy of honor was based upon its being the old imperial capital; that Constantinople came to share in this primacy as the second in the patriarchal order; and that when Old Rome fell away from the Orthodox Faith the first place in the primacy of honor automatically transferred to the New Rome (and then we all know the Russian argument that when the Greeks jumped into bed with the Latins at Florence, the primacy then transferred to the Third Rome, Moscow).
What’s entirely new for me is the argument that the Petrine primacy that once belonged to Old Rome transferred to New Rome. Is the Church of Constantinople herself aware that her primacy is actually Petrine, rather than simply a status granted by the Councils in view of her political importance (the so-called “principle of accomodation” per Dvornik)?
I do have to agree that Abu Qurrah’s point about the Bishop of Rome having called the first Six Ecumenical Councils is, well, rather un-historical. The main point is that this Syrian Orthodox bishop had some views about Petrine primacy and Rome that, in my view, cannot be accounted for by the standard Orthodox anti-papal polemics.
You have obviously provided an interesting alternative to the standard polemical take, and I look forward to an elaboration on your argument, if you desire to do so.
“I know the Orthodox argument that Rome’s primacy of honor was based upon its being the old imperial capital …”
Actually, this was the clear view of Leo the Great, repeated again and again: it was based on Rome’s being the imperial capital that Peter and Paul gave it the primacy; but, of course, Leo went on to assert again and again, that once given by the “apostolic princes” the gift was irrevocable and the “spiritual empire” of Christian Rome founded by its fathers, Peter & Paul, would perdure forever, unlike the Pagan Rome (and its Empire) founded by its fathers, Romulus & Remus.
It would be most profitable, I think, to read the whole sermon that Leo devotes to this theme (I in natal. Petri et Pauli). Here is an excerpt:
“Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostolic Order, received for his lot the citadel of the Roman Empire, that the light of the Truth, which was being revealed for the salvation of all nations, might be shed more efficaciously through the whole body of the world from its head … Rome, which was the mistress of error, has become the disciple of the Truth … These (Peter & Paul) are thy fathers and true pastors who, by planting thee in the heavenly realms, founded thee under much better and happier auspices” than the twin brothers. “These are they who have raised thee to this glory, that being made the Holy See of Blessed Peter, the head of the world, thou, as a holy nation, an elect people, a sacerdotal and royal city, mightest rule more widely by divine religion than with an earthly sway. For though, increased by many victories, thou hast extended thy empire by land and sea, nevertheless, it is a smaller realm that the toil of war has subdued to thee, than that which has been made thy subject by the Christian peace.”
Thanks to CU and Monk Patrick for your comments on the moving words of Bishop Theodore.
In regard of the Petrine primacy “transferring” to New Rome, although I wouldn’t call it transferring as such, much depends on how one is to understand 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.
Cathedraunitatis,
If you haven’t already done so, I recommend reading Hymn of Entry by Archimandrite Vasileios. (1984: SVS Press.)
“He who directed the six holy councils.”
I wonder if there’s some influence here of the forged pseudo-Decretals of Isidore; these would have been floating around in the ninth century. Neither the bishop of Rome, nor any of his legates, were present at Constantinople 1. Constantinople 2 was convened against the express wishes of Vigilius, who did not attend and initially disagreed with its outcome. The council of Chalcedon was called by Emperor Marcianus against the express wishes of Pope Leo, etc.