In the
document produced by the Joint International Commission for Theological
Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church,
"Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium: Towards a Common Understanding in Service to the Unity of the Church" (Chieti, 21 September
2016 [sometimes this document is simply known as "The Chieti
Document"]), the Catholic theologians (handpicked by the Pope and a
document Francis himself has joyously received) in sections 15-20 admitted that
the Bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical jurisdiction in the east during the first
millennium:
15. Between the
fourth and the seventh centuries, the order (taxis) of the five
patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the
ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising
a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times), followed by the sees of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specific order,
according to the canonical tradition.(11)
16. In the West, the
primacy of the see of Rome was understood, particularly from the fourth century
onwards, with reference to Peter’s role among the Apostles. The primacy of the
bishop of Rome among the bishops was gradually interpreted as a prerogative
that was his because he was successor of Peter, the first of the apostles.(12) This
understanding was not adopted in the East, which had a different interpretation
of the Scriptures and the Fathers on this point. Our dialogue may return to
this matter in the future.
17. When a new
patriarch was elected to one of the five sees in the taxis, the
normal practice was that he would send a letter to all the other patriarchs,
announcing his election and including a profession of faith. Such ‘letters of
communion’ profoundly expressed the canonical bond of communion among the
patriarchs. By including the new patriarch’s name, in the proper order, in the
diptychs of their churches, read in the Liturgy, the other patriarchs
acknowledged his election. The taxis of the patriarchal sees
had its highest expression in the celebration of the holy Eucharist. Whenever
two or more patriarchs gathered to celebrate the Eucharist, they would stand
according to the taxis. This practice manifested the eucharistic
character of their communion.
18. From the First
Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325) onwards, major questions regarding faith and
canonical order in the Church were discussed and resolved by the ecumenical
councils. Though the bishop of Rome was not personally present at any of those
councils, in each case either he was represented by his legates or he agreed
with the council’s conclusions post factum. The Church’s
understanding of the criteria for the reception of a council as ecumenical
developed over the course of the first millennium. For example, prompted by
historical circumstances, the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787) gave
a detailed description of the criteria as then understood: the agreement (symphonia)
of the heads of the churches, the cooperation (synergeia) of the bishop
of Rome, and the agreement of the other patriarchs (symphronountes). An
ecumenical council must have its own proper number in the sequence of ecumenical
councils, and its teaching must accord with that of previous councils.(13)
Reception by the Church as a whole has always been the ultimate criterion for
the ecumenicity of a council.
19. Over the
centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the
East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt
was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a
procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The
canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal
to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might
order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring
the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the
see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees
were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the
East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not
exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East.
20. Throughout the
first millennium, the Church in the East and the West was united in preserving
the apostolic faith, maintaining the apostolic succession of bishops,
developing structures of synodality inseparably linked with primacy, and in an
understanding of authority as a service (diakonia) of love. Though the
unity of East and West was troubled at times, the bishops of East and West were
conscious of belonging to the one Church.
Notes for the Above
11) Cf. First
Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), canon 6: ‘The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya
and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria
has authority over all these places, since a similar custom exists with
reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces,
the prerogatives [presbeia] of the churches are to be preserved’; Second
Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381), canon 3: Let the bishop of
Constantinople … have the primacy of honour [presbeia tes times] after
the bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome’; Fourth Ecumenical Council
(Chalcedon, 451), canon 28: ‘The Fathers rightly accorded prerogatives [presbeia]
to the see of older Rome since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same
purpose the one hundred and fifty most devout bishops apportioned equal
prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome, reasonably judging that the city
which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges
equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in
ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her’ (this canon was never
received in the West); Council in Trullo (692), canon 36:
‘Renewing the enactments of the one hundred and fifty Fathers assembled at the
God-protected and imperial city, and those of the six hundred and thirty who
met at Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal
privileges [presbeia] with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly
regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that see is and shall be second after it.
After Constantinople shall be ranked the see of Alexandria, then that of
Antioch, and afterwards the see of Jerusalem’.
12) Cf. Jerome, In
Isaiam 14, 53; Leo, Sermo 96, 2-3.
13) Cf. Seventh Ecumenical
Council (Nicaea II, 787): J. D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et
amplissima collectio, XIII, 208D-209C.
14) Cf. Synod of
Sardica (343), canons 3 and 5.
15) Cf. Council in
Trullo, canon 2. Similarly, the Photian Council of 861 accepted the canons
of Sardica as recognising the bishop of Rome as having a right of cassation in
cases already judged in Constantinople.
16) Cf. Fourth
Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451), canons 9 and 17.