The following is taken from a book review of The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy.  This review is by David E. Utsler.  The words which follow are his but his thoughts so closely match my own I saw no need to try and put this into my own words: 
There are five, universally recognized, ancient patriarchates in the Church.               They are Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. These               patriarchates and every subsequent one – every bishop and every diocese               thereafter – were established in succession to the original twelve               Apostles commissioned by Jesus. Just as the other eleven Apostles were not               mere legates of Peter, neither are the other successors of the Apostles               legates of the successor of St. Peter, the Pope. However, just as Peter was               the head of the College of Apostles and was entrusted with preserving the               unity of the apostolic college, so must the successors of the Apostles               maintain visible communion with the successor of St. Peter.             
St. Irenaeus of Lyons said of the Church of Rome:             
"For with this church, by reason of its preeminence, the whole Church, that               is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord" (Catechism, no.               834).             
What is the nature of this visible communion? Eastern Orthodox theology has               traditionally recognized a special dignity of the great patriarchate of Rome.               The Bishop of Rome is considered to have a "primacy of honor" and to be a               "chief among equals." The single greatest point of division between the               Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy is the nature of Peter's primacy. Is it               a primacy of jurisdiction or one of mere honor?             
As one who almost became Eastern Orthodox myself, I have often been puzzled               by a few questions. If the primacy is one of honor, what is the reason for               Rome having it? Did it derive from the geo-political position of Rome at the               time? If so, Rome's primacy can't in any sense be permanent, as it is too               connected to temporal affairs which are subject to change. If this is so,               then it makes no sense for Eastern Orthodox theologians to continue to               maintain that Rome has a primacy of honor. Is there a theological basis for a               mere primacy of honor? If so, we can ask once more – why Rome? Why the               See of Peter? What exactly is a primacy of honor? Does it mean getting to sit               at the head of the table at official meetings? Though the power of genuine               honor shouldn't be underestimated, what is the reason for acknowledging               Peter's primacy of honor?             
The real issue is the ongoing tension between Peter's primacy of jurisdiction               and the collegiality of all the bishops. The "fatal error" of the Eastern               Churches separated from Rome, Likoudis quite rightly points out, is to               "consider Primacy and Collegiality... to be antithetical to one another"               (xiv). The truth is that primacy without collegiality is a form of               ecclesiastical totalitarianism and a collegiality without primacy is doomed               to become a collegiality in name only. Is it possible to say that there               exists a true collegiality among the Orthodox Churches today? There is a much               more concrete collegiality between the current Bishop of Rome and many               ecumenically minded Orthodox patriarchs than there is among many Orthodox               bishops among themselves!  (more here). 
 
A significant correction/clarification should be made: The See of Constantinople has no apostolic roots, it was not founded by an apostle. Constantinople was 'pushed to the head of the line' as a political power grab. They claim St Andrew founded it, but there is no such evidence in the Fathers.
ReplyDeleteInteresting Nick, I've never considered that before. Constantinople was actually founded by the Emperor Constantine I, for whom the city is named. Literally Constantinople means "City of Constantine" - not "New Rome" though clearly that was Emperor Constantine's goal. Rome was a bit too far removed from the Western frontier to serve as a place for governing the empire. Since he had just united the empire politically and religiously - he was seeking a more central location for ruling over the empire - Byzantium was the choice. (More info and here).
ReplyDelete