Translation of an article by Archimandrite George, rector of the Gregoriate Monastery of St. Mount Athos, which analyzes the decisions of the tenth meeting of the International Mixed Commission in Ravenna.

At its tenth meeting in Ravenna (October 2007), the International Joint Commission on the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches claims to have provided “a solid basis for future discussion on the question of primacy in the Church at the universal level” (par. 46).

"Solid foundation", as follows from paragraph 46 of the above text, is the recognition that in the first millennium, before the final division of 1054, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as the first among the five patriarchs within the framework of the then normally functioning conciliar system.

The meeting also outlined a topic for further discussion on the issue of primacy: “It remains to study more deeply the question of the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of all Churches. What is the special function of the bishop of the “first throne” in the ecclesiology of koinonia and in the light of what we have said about conciliarity and authority in this text? How can we understand and implement the teaching of the first and second Vatican Councils on ecumenical primacy in the light of church practice in the first millennium? These are the critical questions for our dialogue and our hopes for restoring full communion among us” (par. 45).

It is clear that the topic is serious, but how will the dialogue end? According to the assessments of the international press Le Figaro 15/11/2007, Τhe Times 16/11/2007, and mainly the Italian press, everything is moving towards the unification of churches based on the recognition of the primacy of the Pope at the expense of possibly sacrificing some papal privileges. The West awaits the unification of Roman Catholics with Orthodox Christians on the basis of the agreement they have begun with cautious optimism. In the Orthodox East they take a very cautious position and are filled with anxious expectations. And at this time, the believing people are asking the question: will the Orthodox faith be distorted?

In our recent article, we noted that the dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Catholics, as it has developed to this day, shows that everything is moving towards a Uniate-type unification according to the plan developed in the Vatican. We expressed the hope that “the Orthodox will not give in in response to the eternal papal claims and will not amnesty the union, will not recognize any primacy of power and universal jurisdiction for the Pope, will not agree to take part in the Vatican plans for unification, which will directly or indirectly lead to to neglect the undistorted Orthodox faith" (Article entitled "Concerns about the Vatican's preparations for the unification of Orthodox and Roman Catholics", in the magazine Παρακαταθήκη No. 54, 2007).

What does the Ravenna Document lead to?

There are good reasons to believe that the Ravenna Document confirms fears that the Orthodox will give in to papal claims, and here's why.

1) The text refers to the “Roman Catholic Church”. This is not a technical term; it has a very specific theological content here. The dialogue is conducted with the condition that this is true. At this point, the Orthodox delegation retreated unacceptably far. The Balamand Agreement (1993) recognizes the Roman Catholic Church in the full sense of the word, and this is a significant departure from the most basic and starting points of the dialogue. While Roman Catholics, recognizing Orthodox Church validity of the sacraments and apostolic succession, remain faithful to the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, the Orthodox have abandoned the belief of the authoritative holy fathers and councils that the Roman Catholic Church has cut itself off from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and is a heretical church due to the adoption of heretical dogmas.

2) Shortly before the Ravenna meeting, in July 2007, the Vatican issued a guide “Answers to questions concerning certain views on the doctrine of the Church,” in which local Churches are recognized as “defective” because they do not have communion with the successor of the Apostle Peter. This document is nothing more than the line along which dialogue should develop. And this line is Roman-centric ecumenism as defined by the Second Vatican Council. In the notes to par. 1 Orthodox representatives, despite their assurance that the use of the term “Church” does not contradict the Orthodox self-awareness as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, nevertheless do not cite the basic principle of Orthodox ecclesiology, which denies the indicated signs of the Roman Catholic Church . At the same time, Catholics declared that outside the Catholic Church in other Churches they recognize only individual elements of the true Church.

3) The mention in the Ravenna Document of the apostolic faith, sacraments, and apostolic succession in relation to the Catholic Church is made with such naturalness that one might think that this Church is Orthodox in all these points. However, even Saint Mark Eugenicus questioned the validity of the sacraments of the Catholic Church on the grounds that it had broken away from the true Church, with which it is impossible to disagree. The Catholic Church contains heretical errors such as the Filioque, virgin birth, papal infallibility, etc. Due to its schismatic nature, it cannot be Catholic Church and apostolic succession, for St. Gregory the Theologian noted that apostolic succession is confirmed by the Orthodox way of thinking, and abolished by the heterodox.

4) The Ravenna Document examines two aspects of the institution of the Church: conciliarity and authority (par. 40–41). The parties agreed that in the first millennium of the life of the Church, the ecclesiological content of conciliarity and authority was embodied in both the East and the West in an Orthodox manner. Of course, in the first millennium conciliarity functioned, and therefore no power in the form of ecumenical primacy or primacy of jurisdiction could develop. But over the centuries, the importance of conciliarity was gradually diminished in the Roman Church, which eventually gave way to the primacy of the Pope. Hence the disagreement between Catholic and Orthodox participants in the dialogue on the interpretation of the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome in the era in question. Since Roman Catholics do not abandon the pope-centric interpretation of the institutions of conciliarity and power in the first millennium of the life of the Church, the agreement of the Ravenna Document tends to recognize the pope as ecumenical primacy. Only if Catholics agree to interpret the church history of the first millennium in the same way as the Orthodox will it be possible for them to reject the papal innovations of the second millennium. Only under this condition will the discussion at subsequent meetings of the Commission on the interpretation of the terms “conciliarity” and “power” lead to conclusions in an Orthodox vein, i.e. will tend to abolish the primacy of the Pope. However, knowing the strategy of the Vatican, we do not expect that Catholics will abandon their papocentrism, both ancient and modern, because they have “sealed” it with the decisions of their thirteen “ecumenical” councils.

The Vatican’s tactics in all dialogues are to try to cancel all theological agreements that run counter to the line of the papal curia. Just as the Orthodox retreated on the issue with the Uniates, so they will retreat in the next dialogues and recognize a certain kind of universal primacy for the Pope.

5) We would like Catholics to abandon the pope-centric interpretation church history the first millennium, for the Monk Justin (Popovich) connected the emergence of all other deviations in Catholic doctrine with the question of the primacy of the Pope.

When theological dialogue is conducted on the basis of Orthodox premises, then this is not bad. Only we must firmly adhere to the conciliarly approved position of the Orthodox Church on the issue of papism. The Ravenna Document does not show an unconditional paternal and conciliar Orthodox position. It also lacks the spirit that guided Saint Mark Eugenicus during the negotiations on unification at the Ferraro-Florence Council, when he immediately at the beginning proposed the undistorted Creed and its Orthodox interpretation as the basis for discussion. The directness with which Saint Nektarios of Aegina reasoned in his work “On the Causes of the Schism” is missing. And vice versa, an ambiguous “ecclesiology of communion” prevails, in which it is not communion between Orthodox Christians in faith that is conceived Local Churches, but between the Orthodox Church and the heterodox Roman Church.

There is a clear tendency in the Ravenna Document to present the question of the primacy of the Pope as a "regulation" of papal privileges, rather than as a deep theological problem concerning the Sacrament of Christ itself. To agree with the primacy of jurisdiction over all, that is, to accept that one bishop is the head and commander of the entire Church, even if he is also entrusted with the role of a minister, is blasphemy against the Person of Christ, as the only Head of the body of the Church. The only privilege of the Bishop of Rome with which the Orthodox agree is the primacy of honor among the five Orthodox Patriarchs, and, consequently, the commemoration in diptychs of the first Bishop of Rome. Other prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome are not recognized by the Orthodox. The document contains ambiguous phrases such as “protoi must recognize the first among them” (par. 10). The Church has always recognized the primacy of the Roman see as long as the Roman bishop was Orthodox, but has never until now recognized him as having any primacy or authority over the entire Church, especially since the Roman Church persists in its heretical dogmas.

At the next meetings of the Commission, a discussion is expected on the role of the Bishop of Rome and his primacy in the “communion of churches.” We, as Orthodox Christians, cannot accept a papal-centric interpretation of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. By virtue of this interpretation of primacy, the Pope is clothed with completely unacceptable privileges, without the consent of the other Churches of the ancient pentarchy and, moreover, in the overthrow of the canonical order of the ancient Church.

From all of the above, it becomes clear that the Ravenna Agreement on Conciliarity and Authority does not meet the criteria of Orthodox ecclesiology so that it could represent a clear basis for further discussion about the primacy of the Pope. When it comes to interpreting the primacy of the Pope in the second millennium, as well as the First and Second Vatican Councils, Orthodox representatives should be guided by the Orthodox teaching of the Holy Fathers, and not by the conformist way of thinking, depending on the demands of the time, or by the imperious mood of the Vatican. Recognition of any prerogative for the Pope that is contrary to Orthodox ecclesiology will undoubtedly mean Uniate unity, with which we will not agree.

The Headship of the Apostle Peter

Main article: The Headship of the Apostle Peter

Controversy over the date of Easter

Main article: Controversy over the date of Easter

At the end of the 2nd century, Bishop Victor of Rome tried to resolve disputes about the date of Easter by excommunicating the bishops and flock of Asia Minor. According to Afanasyev, during the so-called Easter disputes of the end of the 2nd century, the energetic actions of Pope Victor (189-198) still did not go beyond the boundaries of ordinary church practice. Afanasyev points out that the pope’s categorical demand to accept the position of Rome was based on the tradition of the overwhelming majority of Churches. The Churches of Asia Minor remained isolated after all the other Churches followed Victor's demand, but it would be a mistake to speak of their “excommunication”: at the end of the 2nd century no one considered it possible that one Church could excommunicate another.

Dispute between Pope Stephen and Cyprian of Carthage

After the persecution of Emperor Decius in 250-251, disagreements arose over the permissibility of the return to their posts of Spanish bishops, who during the persecution made sacrifices to pagan deities. Pope Stephen allowed for the return of those who had fallen away through repentance, and Cyprian of Carthage insisted on the acceptance of the Novatians through rebaptism. When the difference became clear, Pope Stephen began to demand that the African Church act according to Roman practice. In response to this, Cyprian, who had previously emphasized the supremacy of the Roman bishop among others, convened three councils in Carthage, at which a decision was made not to recognize the baptism of heretics and to adhere to the practice that existed in Africa. Having learned about this, the pope writes to Carthage and once again demands that the Novatians be accepted only through repentance, and also for the first time refers to Matt. to justify his primacy. Pope Stephen was criticized by Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilian of Caesarea.

According to Afanasyev, both Stephen and Cyprian moved away from church tradition, and Cyprian to a greater extent, since he tried to establish leadership over the entire Church through his Councils, which was an innovation. Afanasyev believes that Stephen’s behavior was natural and fully consistent with the priority role of the Roman Church, especially since Spain was in the sphere of its direct influence.

Alternative Views

Protestant view

The topic of the papacy and its authority is one of the main differences between the Catholic Church and many other Christian denominations. The Bible is the only authority on Protestant creed and theology, and its interpretation is not associated with only one person. An important document of Protestant rejection of the dogma of the primacy of the pope is the treatise “On the Power and Primacy of the Pope,” written on February 17, 1537 by Philip Melanchthon and signed by all Lutheran theologians.

Orthodox view

The Orthodox Church has never had and to this day does not have a unified administrative structure. Before the schism of 1054, the bishop of Rome was considered first “in honor,” but the primacy of power was not recognized for him. After 1054, “first among equals” among the primates of local Orthodox churches is recognized as the Patriarch of Constantinople, who since Byzantine times bears the title “Ecumenical”, but neither this title nor the primacy of honor gives the Patriarch of Constantinople any jurisdictional rights outside the boundaries of his own Patriarchate.

Alternative opinions of church councils

During the first three centuries, the Church resolved issues through local councils, without seeking directives from Rome. None of the bishops of Rome presided over any Ecumenical Council in person. Instead, his representatives (legates) were present, who took first place “in honor”, ​​since Rome was the capital of the empire.

• Rule 6 of the First Ecumenical Council decreed: “Let the ancient customs accepted in Egypt, and in Libya, and in Pentapolis be preserved, so that the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over all of them. For the Bishop of Rome, this is customary, likewise in Antioch and in other areas, so that the advantages of the Churches may be preserved.” Thus, the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were recognized as equal in the exercise of their powers within their territory.

• II Ecumenical Council: “The Bishop of Constantinople has the advantage of honor over the Bishop of Rome, because this city is New Rome” (canon 3).

There are many misconceptions regarding the primacy of the Roman Church. In this article we will look at some of them.

You can often hear statements that the ancient Church did not know such a thing as the primacy of the Roman see, that there is no hint of anything like that in the Gospel, and the Church Fathers say nothing about it. That this idea was invented quite late and is the result of the increased ambitions of the Roman bishops (some attribute its authorship to Pope Nicholas I, others to Gregory VII, others to Alexander VI, and some even to Gregory XIII). Moreover, it is based on forged documents, such as the so-called “Donation of Constantine” or “False Isidore’s Decretals.” And, of course, there can be no question of any power of the Roman bishop over other local Churches.

Without going into details because of the volume of this issue, we note that the primacy of the Roman see is justified by the Catholic Church precisely by references to the Gospels (the main ones are Matthew 16:17-19; Luke 22:32; John 21:15). Both Tradition and the Fathers of the Church agree with this rationale. Thus, the concept of the primacy of the Roman bishop, as the heir of the Supreme Apostle Peter, existed in the Church from the beginning. We find confirmation of this in the earliest documents on the history of the Church. Already at the end of the 1st century, Pope Clement I, in his famous letter, examined the conflict in the Corinthian Church, and examined it as having the right and power to do so. Even the Lutheran theologian Harnack is forced to admit this: “This entry (of the Roman See) into the history of the Church - after the testimony of the Apostle Paul that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the world (Rom 1:8) - is unusually brilliant; ... the message proves that already at the end of the 1st century the Roman community had developed a strong structure for itself, that it looked after distant communities with maternal care and that it was then able to speak the language ... of duty, love and power.”

We find evidence that the messages of Pope Clement enjoyed special authority and were read “in all churches” from Epiphanius of Cyprus. St. also writes about the authority of the letters of Popes Clement and Soter. Dionysius of Corinth: “Today we celebrated the holy day of the Lord, and read your letter, which we will always read for our instruction, just as Clement wrote to us before.”

Many saints wrote about the primacy of the Roman Church. Fathers, ancient church and statesmen, and even non-Christian authors. The materials of the Ecumenical and local Councils also speak about this. A collection of quotations confirming the primacy of the Roman see and its bishop in the Church could form a very voluminous volume. Therefore, we will give only a few.

Irenaeus Lyonsky : “The Holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, must be consulted in everything concerning faith. When (arguing with heretics) we set forth the traditions which the great, most holy and most heavenly Roman Church, founded by Peter and Paul, received from them and maintains the succession of its bishops, we then crush the heretics... because all churches must agree with this church and all believers in the entire universe, high for the sake of its supremacy, and because in it believers, scattered throughout the world, preserve the tradition that comes from the Apostles" ( Against heresies, III, 3.2).

Optat Milevitansky:“You cannot deny that you know that the degree of the holy see was given to Rome, the see of blessed Peter, the head of the apostles, and therefore called “the stone.” In this see it was necessary for all believers to maintain unity, so that the other apostles could not grant themselves the degree of the holy see, so that anyone who erected any other see against this one would be considered guilty and a renegade.” ( Against the Donatists, book II, 2)

Basil the Great:“Just as the head cannot say to the feet: I have no need of you, so of course you will not agree to reject us” (from a letter to Pope Damasus, Creations of St. Basil the Great, vol. VII, 189, 194).

Mina, Patriarch of Constantinople : “We follow and obey the Apostolic See; whomever he accepts into fellowship, we also accept; whomever he condemns, we also condemn” (Mansi, VIII, 969).

St. Maximus the Confessor:“All the limits of the universe and everywhere on earth, those who immaculately and orthodoxly confess the Lord, as if at the sun of eternal light, unswervingly look at most holy church the Romans, on its confession and faith, receiving from it the sparkling splendor of paternal and holy dogmas... For from the very beginning, from the descent of the incarnate God of the Word to us, everything is everywhere Christian churches accepted and maintain that greatest among them, the Roman Church, as a single stronghold and foundation, as forever invincible, according to the promise of the Savior, through the gates of hell, having the keys of the Orthodox faith in Him” (Migne, P.L., 110, 137-140).

Theodore the Studite:“If you encounter anything doubtful, then command that we accept the explanation from Ancient Rome, as has been done since ancient times and from the beginning according to the Father’s Tradition. For there... is the highest of the churches of God, on the throne of which Peter first sat, to whom the Lord said: “You are Peter”..." ( Creations, St. Petersburg D.A., 1908. II, 447).

But here is the testimony of an outsider who does not belong to the Church, a pagan historian Ammianus Marcellina, a contemporary of Blessed. Augustine - “The bishops of the eternal city enjoy the highest power” ( Book of Acts, XV, 7, 10).

In 821, the Byzantine Emperor Michael II, wishing to reconcile with the church party of icon-worshippers, convened a council in Constantinople. “However, representatives of icon veneration declared that it was not appropriate for them to attend the council with heretics; and if the emperor already finds that the patriarch cannot solve this issue, then for a solution he must turn to Ancient Rome, to the main one of all Churches of God founded by the Apostle Peter."

After the schism, in 1136, a dispute took place in Constantinople between representatives of the Western and Eastern Churches, during which Metropolitan Nicodemus of Nicomedia, commenting on the arguments in favor of the primacy of Rome presented by Anselm of Havelberg, agreed: “We have it here, in the archives of Hagia Sophia , narratives about the glorious deeds of the Roman Pontiffs, we have acts of councils, which confirm everything that you said about the authority of the Roman Church. It would not be consistent with anything to deny what, as we see, our own Fathers said.”

As for forged documents, the Catholic Church has never proved its supremacy on the basis of them. The main argument of the Catholic Church has always been Holy Bible. The so-called “Donation of Constantine” is a document that in the Middle Ages began to be attributed to Constantine the Great, who allegedly transferred Rome into the possession of Pope Sylvester I. It was first discovered as part of the Paris manuscript (Code Latin 2777) no earlier than the 9th century. Its creation is usually attributed to 752-778. Meanwhile, as we have seen, the first evidence of the primacy of the Roman Church dates back to a much earlier period. In addition, with the help of the “Donation of Constantine” it is possible to prove only the rights of the Bishop of Rome to secular power over Rome, and not at all primacy in the Church, which cannot be established by secular authorities, including emperors. It should be added that the forgery of this document was discovered by the Catholics themselves. One of the first to come to this conclusion was Nikolai Kuzansky. In 1450, the falsity of the “Donation of Constantine” was proven Lorenzo Valla. In 1592, after the publication of Caesar's book Baronius Church Annals, the fact of falsification of this document was finally recognized.

“The False Isidore Decretals” is a collection of canons allegedly compiled by a certain Isidore Mercator. Nothing is known about this person. Based on a reliable collection church canons, and not all the documents there are fake. The creation of the collection dates back to 850-851. They were presumably compiled by Archbishop Ginkmar of Reims, or someone from his entourage. Ginkmar himself was a long-term opponent of several Popes. It is known for certain that in 852, Ginkmar of Reims used this collection of documents not at all to prove papal primacy, but to fight his opponents, both secular and ecclesiastical. Thus, he used these Decretals to depose Bishop Rotad of Soissons. However, Pope Nicholas I took the matter under his own control, and restored Rotada to his see. The Decretals reached Rome, apparently, in 864 as evidence in this case. Sometimes there are statements that Popes Adrian I and Nicholas I referred to the “False Decretals of Isidore”. This is not so. Neither Adrian I (who died 55 years before the compilation of this collection) nor Nicholas I (even in his polemics with Photius) mention them. Later, Popes referred to some materials from this collection, but they were never the main argument, and already from the 12th century, the hierarchs of the Catholic Church had doubts about their authenticity. Later, Catholic scholars proved that much of these documents were fraudulent, and the Catholic Church rejected them. The falsity of the Decretals does not serve as evidence against the existence of the primacy of the Roman Church, since it is based not on them, but on the Gospel. As in the case of the Donation of Constantine, the Fathers of the Church testify to the primacy of Rome long before the appearance of the False Decretals of Isidore.

And, finally, the assertion that the Bishop of Rome had no power in the Church, but only had some kind of honorable and meaningless “primacy of honor”, ​​is refuted by the entire church history. If we accept this point of view, then it will be completely impossible to explain the numerous appeals of hierarchs, clergy and councils of various local Churches to the Bishop of Rome on issues that would seem to be in no way within the competence of the local Church of the city of Rome. But this was the centuries-old practice of the undivided Church. How can we explain why the Archdeacon of Constantinople Aetius turns to Rome for help regarding his illegal removal by Patriarch Anatolius, and the Councils of Jerusalem, Diospolis, and Mileus, as well as the blessed one. Augustine of Hippo on the case of the heretic Pelagius - to Pope Innocent? Why do the Alexandrian Bishop John Thalaia and the Abbot of the Studite Monastery Cyril complain to Rome about Peter Mong and the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius? Why does Pope Agapit depose Patriarch Anthimus and ordain Mina in his place? What right did Pope Celestine have to write to the Council: “So that they do not think that this judgment is valid only in relation to the one who has already called upon himself the judgment of God, we have determined by the authority of our throne: a bishop, or cleric, and every Christian who was in the rank of the church, from among those who were removed from their place and from communion with the Church by Nestorius or those like him, from the time they began to preach their wicked teaching, shall not be considered removed or deprived of communication; but all of them were and are still in communication with us ; because he could neither overthrow nor remove anyone who, while preaching such a teaching, did not remain firm in the teaching of the truth. Such a real word of mine unites everyone in communication with each other...”? And why was the Council not indignant at such “arbitrariness”?

There are many such examples. And they can only be explained by the presence of power in the Roman Church. Here is what the famous Orthodox theologian and professor at the St. Sergius Institute in Paris, Olivier Clement, writes about this: “... in the era of the Ecumenical Councils, the East recognized the real primacy of Rome and the succession of Peter that flowed from this. It was about more than just a “primacy of honor,” than recognizing the bishop of Rome as first among equals.”

Dmitry Lyalin

The document was adopted at a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on December 25-26, 2013 ( ).

The question of primacy in the Universal Church was repeatedly raised during the work of the Mixed International Commission on Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. March 27, 2007 Holy Synod The Russian Orthodox Church was instructed to study this issue and prepare the official position of the Moscow Patriarchate (). Meanwhile, on October 13, 2007, at a meeting of the Mixed Commission in Ravenna - in the absence of the delegation of the Russian Church and without taking into account its opinion - a document was adopted on the topic “Ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the Church.” Having studied the Ravenna document, the Russian Orthodox Church did not agree with it in the part where it concerns conciliarity and primacy at the level of the Universal Church. Since the Ravenna Document distinguishes between three levels of church administration - local, regional and ecumenical - the following position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the issue of primacy in the Universal Church also addresses this topic at three levels.

1. The Holy Church of Christ primacy in everything belongs to its Head - our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man. According to the Holy Apostle Paul, the Lord Jesus Christ There is head of the body of the Church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He may have primacy in everything (Col 1:18).

According to apostolic teaching, The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, having raised Him from the dead, planted at His right hand in the heavens, far above all Principality and Authority and Power and Dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come... and He has set Him above all things, head of the Church which is His Body(Eph 1:17-23).

The Church on earth is not only a community of believers in Christ, but also a Divine-human organism: You are the body of Christ, and individually you are members(1 Cor 12:27).

Accordingly, the various forms of primacy in the Church as it makes its historical pilgrimage in this world are secondary to the eternal primacy of Christ as the Head of the Church, through whom God the Father reconciles everything to Himself, pacifying through Him... both earthly and heavenly(Col 1:20). Primacy in the Church should be, first of all, a ministry of reconciliation, with the goal of creating harmony, according to the word of the Apostle, who calls preserve the unity of spirit in the bond of peace(Eph. 4:3).

2. In the life of the Church of Christ in this century, primacy, along with conciliarity, is one of fundamental principles her arrangement. On different levels Church life has historically established primacy different nature And various sources. These levels are: (1) bishopric (diocese), (2) autocephalous Local Church and (3) Universal Church.

(1) At level dioceses primacy belongs to the bishop. The primacy of a bishop in his diocese has solid theological and canonical foundations, dating back to the era of the early Christian Church. According to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, bishops The Holy Spirit appointed... overseers to shepherd the Church of the Lord and God, which He purchased with His own Blood(Acts 20:28). Source of primacy a bishop in his diocese is apostolic succession communicated through consecration 1 .

Episcopal ministry is the necessary foundation of the Church: “The bishop is in the Church, and the Church is in the bishop, and whoever is not with the bishop is not in the Church” (Schm. Cyprian of Carthage 2 ). Sschmch. Ignatius the God-Bearer compares the primacy of the bishop in his diocese with the primacy of God: “Try to do everything in the unanimity of God, since the bishop presides instead of God, the elders take the place of the council of the apostles, and the deacons, sweetest to me, have been entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, Who was before the Father , and finally appeared visibly” (Epistle to the Magnesians, 6).

In his ecclesiastical destiny, the bishop has full power - sacramental, administrative and teaching. Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer teaches: “No one should do anything related to the Church without a bishop. Only that Eucharist should be considered true, which is celebrated by the bishop or by those to whom he himself provides it... It is not permissible to baptize without a bishop, or to celebrate the supper of love; on the contrary, whatever he approves is pleasing to God, so that every deed may be firm and certain” (Epistle to the Smyrnae, 7).

The sacramental authority of the bishop is expressed most fully in the Eucharist. During its performance, the bishop is the image of Christ, on the one hand representing the Church of the faithful before the face of God the Father, and on the other hand, teaching the faithful the blessing of God and feeding them with true spiritual food and drink of the Eucharistic Sacrament. As the head of his diocese, the bishop leads the cathedral service, ordains clergy and appoints them to church parishes, blessing them to perform the Eucharist and other sacraments and sacred rites.

The administrative power of the bishop is expressed in the fact that the clergy, monastics and laity of the diocese, parishes and monasteries (except for stauropegial ones), as well as various diocesan institutions (educational, charitable, etc.) are subordinate to him. The bishop presides over cases of ecclesiastical offenses. The Apostolic Canons say: “Let the bishop take care of all church things and dispose of them” (38th canon); “Presbyters and deacons do nothing without the will of the bishop. For the Lord’s people have been entrusted to him, and he will render an account for their souls” (canon 39).

(2) At level autocephalous Local Church primacy belongs to the bishop, elected as the Primate of the Local Church by the Council of its bishops 3 . Respectively, source of primacy at the level of the autocephalous Church is the election of the primary bishop by the Council (or Synod), which has full ecclesiastical power. Such primacy has solid canonical foundations, dating back to the era of the Ecumenical Councils.

The power of the Primate in the autocephalous Local Church is different from the power of the bishop in his ecclesiastical appanage: it is the power of the first among equal bishops. He carries out his ministry of primacy in accordance with the general church canonical tradition, expressed in the 34th Apostolic Canon: “It becomes the bishops of every nation to know who is first in them, and to recognize him as head , and do nothing that exceeds their power without his reasoning: to do for each only what concerns his diocese and the places belonging to it. But even the first one does not do anything without the judgment of everyone. For thus there will be one mind, and God will be glorified in the Lord in the Holy Spirit, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

The powers of the Primate of the autocephalous Local Church are determined by the Council (Synod) and enshrined in the charter. The Primate of the autocephalous Local Church is the chairman of its Council (or Synod). Thus, the Primate does not have sole power in the autocephalous Local Church, but governs it conciliarly - in collaboration with other bishops 4 .

(3) At level Universal Church as a community of autocephalous Local Churches, united into one family by a common confession of faith and living in sacramental communion with each other, primacy is determined in accordance with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and is championship of honor. This tradition goes back to the rules of the Ecumenical Councils (3rd II Ecumenical Council, 28th IV Ecumenical Council and 36 VI Ecumenical Council) and is confirmed throughout church history in the acts of the Councils of individual Local Churches, as well as in the practice of liturgical commemoration by the Primate of each Autocephalous Church Primates of other Local Churches in the order of sacred diptychs.

The order of the diptychs has changed historically. During the first millennium of church history, the primacy of honor belonged to the Roman See 5 . After the rupture of Eucharistic communion between Rome and Constantinople in the middle of the 11th century, primacy in the Orthodox Church passed to the next department in the order of the diptych -. From then until the present time, the primacy of honor in the Orthodox Church at the universal level belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equal Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches.

Source of primacy of honor at the level of the Universal Church is the canonical tradition of the Church, recorded in sacred diptychs and recognized by all autocephalous Local Churches. The content of the primacy of honor at the ecumenical level is not determined by the canons of the Ecumenical or Local Councils. The canonical rules on which the sacred diptychs are based do not give the primacy (who was the Bishop of Rome at the time of the Ecumenical Councils) any authority on a church-wide scale 6 .

Ecclesiological distortions that attribute functions to the supreme hierarch at the universal level management, characteristic of primacy at other levels of church organization, in the polemical literature of the second millennium received the name “papism.”

3. Due to the fact that the nature of the primacy that exists at different levels of the church structure (diocesan, local and ecumenical) is different, the functions of the primacy at different levels are not identical and cannot be transferred from one level to another.

The transfer of the functions of the ministry of primacy from the episcopal level to the universal level essentially means the recognition of a special type of ministry - the “ecumenical bishop”, who has teaching and administrative authority throughout the entire Universal Church. Such recognition, abolishing the sacramental equality of the episcopate, leads to the emergence of the jurisdiction of the ecumenical first hierarch, about which nothing is said sacred canons, nor the patristic tradition and the consequence of which is the derogation or even abolition of the autocephaly of the Local Churches.

In turn, the extension of the primacy that is inherent in the primate of the autocephalous Local Church (according to the 34th Apostolic Canon) to the universal level 7 would have endowed the leader of the Universal Church with special powers, regardless of the consent of the Local Orthodox Churches to this. Such a transfer of understanding of the nature of primacy from the local level to the ecumenical level would require a corresponding transfer of the procedure for electing the first bishop at the ecumenical level, which would already lead to a violation of the right of the first autocephalous Local Church to independently choose its Primate.

4. The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ warned his disciples against covetousness (cf. Matt. 20:25-28). The Church has always resisted distorted ideas about primacy that began to penetrate church life from ancient times 8 . Abuses of power were condemned in the definitions of the Councils and the writings of holy men. 9 .

The Roman bishops, who are foremost in honor in the Universal Church, from the point of view of the Churches of the East, have always been the patriarchs of the West, that is, the primates of the Western Local Church. However, already in the first millennium of church history in the West, the doctrine of a special teaching and administrative power Bishop of Rome, extending to the entire Universal Church.

The Orthodox Church did not accept the teaching of the Roman Church on papal primacy and divine origin the authority of the first bishop in the Universal Church. Orthodox theologians have always insisted that the Roman Church is one of the autocephalous Local Churches and does not have the right to extend its jurisdiction to the territory of other Local Churches. They also believed that the primacy of honor of the Roman bishops was in the nature of a human and not a divine institution 10 .

Throughout the second millennium and to this day, the Orthodox Church has maintained the administrative structure that was characteristic Eastern Church first millennium. Within the framework of this structure, each autocephalous Local Church, being in dogmatic, canonical and eucharistic unity with other Local Churches, is independent in governance. The Orthodox Church does not and never has had a single administrative center at the universal level.

On the contrary, in the West, the development of the doctrine of the special power of the Roman bishop, according to which the supreme power in the Universal Church belongs to the Bishop of Rome as the successor of the Apostle Peter and the vicar of Christ on earth, led to the formation of a different administrative model of the church structure with a single universal center in Rome 11 .

In accordance with two different models of church structure, the conditions of canonicity were presented differently church community. IN Catholic tradition An indispensable condition for canonicity is the Eucharistic unity of a particular church community with the Roman See. IN Orthodox tradition A community is considered canonical if it is part of the autocephalous Local Church and, thanks to this, is in eucharistic unity with other canonical Local Churches.

As is known, attempts to instill in the Eastern Church a Western model of administrative structure have invariably met with resistance in the Orthodox East. It is reflected in church documents 12 and polemical literature, which form part of the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

5. Primacy in the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, which by its very nature is a primacy of honor and not of power, is of great importance for Orthodox witness in the modern world.

The Patriarchal See of Constantinople has primacy of honor on the basis of the sacred diptychs, recognized by all Local Orthodox Churches. The content of this primacy is determined by the consensus of the Local Orthodox Churches, expressed, in particular, at pan-Orthodox meetings on the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church 13 .

Exercising his primacy, the Primate Church of Constantinople may take initiatives on a pan-Orthodox scale, as well as address the outside world on behalf of the entire Orthodox community, provided that he is authorized to do so by all Local Orthodox Churches.

6. Primacy in the Church of Christ is called to serve spiritual unity its members and the improvement of its life, for God is not a God of disorder, but of peace(1 Cor. 14:33). The service of a leader in the Church, alien to worldly lust for power, has as its goal building up the body of Christ... so that we... through true love may grow all things into Him who is head Christ, from which the whole body... when each member acts in its own measure, receives an increase for the creation of itself in love(Eph 4:12-16).

Which includes election, ordination and reception by the Church.

Ep. 69.8, PL 4, 406A (in Russian translation Message 54)

As a rule, the primate bishop heads the main (primary) see in the canonical territory of the corresponding Church.

Autocephalous Local Churches may include complex church formations, for example, in the Russian Orthodox Church there are autonomous and self-governing Churches, metropolitan districts, exarchates and metropolises. Each of them has its own forms of championship, which are determined Local Council and are reflected in the church charter.

The primacy of honor of the Roman See and the second place of the See of Constantinople is stated in the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council: “Let the Bishop of Constantinople have the priority of honor over the Bishop of Rome, because that city is the new Rome.” In the 28th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council, the above rule is clarified and the canonical reason for the primacy of honor of Rome and Constantinople is indicated: “The fathers gave decent advantages to the throne of ancient Rome: since it was the reigning city. Following the same impulse, one hundred and fifty God-loving bishops presented equal advantages to the most holy see of the new Rome, righteously judging that the city, which received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclit, and having equal advantages with the old royal Rome, would be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs likewise, and will be the second according to it.”

There are rules that are used in polemical literature to canonically substantiate the judicial prerogatives of the primacy of the Roman see: these are the 4th and 5th rules of the Council of Sardica (343). Meanwhile, these rules do not say that the rights of the Roman See to accept appeals extend to the entire Universal Church. It is known from the canonical code that even in the West these rights were not unlimited. So, even the Council of Carthage in 256, chaired by St. Cyprian, on the claims of Rome to primacy, expressed the following opinion about the relationship between bishops: “None of us should make himself a bishop of bishops or force his colleagues into submission by tyrannical threats, because every bishop, by virtue of freedom and power, has the right of his own choice and how cannot be judged by another, so he himself cannot judge another; but let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to appoint us to govern His Church and to judge our actions” (Sententiae episcoporum, PL 3, 1085C; 1053A-1054A). This is also evidenced by the Epistle of the African Council to Celestine, Pope of Rome (424), included in all authoritative publications of the canonical corpus - in particular, in the Book of Rules, as part of the canons of the Council of Carthage. In this letter, the Council rejects the right of the Pope to accept appeals from the judicial decisions of the Council of African Bishops: “We beseech you, Mr. Brother, so that you do not henceforth easily allow those who come from here to reach your ears, and do not deign henceforth to receive into communion those who have been excommunicated by us...”. Rule 118 of the Council of Carthage contains a ban on appealing to the Churches of overseas countries, which in any case also implies Rome: “Whoever, having been excommunicated from church communion in Africa, sneaks into overseas countries in order to be accepted into communion, will be subject to ejection from the clergy.” .

As is known, there is not a single canon that would allow such a practice.

Even in apostolic times, the holy Apostle John the Theologian in his Epistle condemned Diotrephes, who loved to excel (3 John 1:9).

Thus, the Third Ecumenical Council, protecting the right to self-government, in its 8th rule decided: “Let those in charge of the holy Cypriot Churches have freedom, without claims to them and without constraining them, according to the rules of the holy fathers and according to ancient custom, to perform installation of the most reverent bishops. Let the same be observed in other areas and throughout the dioceses: so that none of the most God-loving bishops extends power to another diocese that was not before and at first under the hands of him or his predecessors. But if someone has stretched out and forcibly subjugated any diocese, let him give it back: let the rules of the fathers not be violated, and let the arrogance of worldly power not creep in under the guise of sacred rites; and may we not lose little by little, imperceptibly, the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all men, gave us with His blood.”

So in the 13th century. St. Herman of Constantinople wrote: “There are five patriarchates with boundaries defined for each, and meanwhile, in Lately a schism arose among them, the beginning of which was laid by a daring hand seeking predominance and dominion in the Church. The Head of the Church is Christ, and any attempt at supremacy is contrary to His teaching” (quoted from: Sokolov I.I. Lectures on the history of the Greek-Eastern Church. - St. Petersburg, 2005. P. 129).

In the XIV century. Nilus Cabasilas, Archbishop of Thessalonica wrote about the primacy of the Roman bishop: “The Pope really has two privileges: he is the bishop of Rome ... and he is first [in honor] among bishops. From Peter he received the Roman see, while he received the primacy [of honor] much later from the blessed Fathers and pious emperors, only so that there would be order in church affairs” (De primatu papae, PG 149, 701 CD).

At its tenth meeting in Ravenna (October 2007), the International Mixed Commission on the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church claims to have provided “a solid basis for future discussion on the question of primacy in the Church at the universal level” (par. 46). "Solid foundation", as it appears in paragraph 46 of the above text, is the recognition that in the first millennium, before the final division of 1054, the Bishop of Rome was recognized as the first among the five patriarchs within the framework of the then normally functioning conciliar system. The meeting also outlined a topic for further discussion on the issue of primacy: “It remains to study more deeply the question of the role of the Bishop of Rome in the communion of all Churches. What is the special function of the bishop of the “first throne” in the ecclesiology of koinonia and in the light of what we have said about conciliarity and authority in this text? How can we understand and implement the teaching of the first and second Vatican Councils on ecumenical primacy in the light of church practice in the first millennium? These are the critical questions for our dialogue and our hopes for restoring full communion among us” (par. 45).

It is clear that the topic is serious, but how will the dialogue end? According to the assessments of the international press Le Figaro 15/11/2007, Τ he Times 16/11/2007, and mainly the Italian press, everything is moving towards the unification of churches based on the recognition of the primacy of the Pope at the expense of possibly sacrificing some papal privileges. The West awaits the unification of Roman Catholics with Orthodox Christians on the basis of the agreement they have begun with cautious optimism. In the Orthodox East they take a very cautious position and are filled with anxious expectations. And at this time, the believing people are asking the question: will the Orthodox faith be distorted?

In our recent article, we noted that the dialogue between Orthodox Christians and Catholics, as it has developed to this day, shows that everything is moving towards a Uniate-type unification according to the plan developed in the Vatican. We expressed the hope that “the Orthodox will not give in in response to the eternal papal claims and will not amnesty the union, will not recognize any primacy of power and universal jurisdiction for the Pope, will not agree to take part in the Vatican plans for unification, which will directly or indirectly lead to to neglect the undistorted Orthodox faith"(Article entitled "Concerns about the Vatican's planned unification of Orthodox and Roman Catholics", in the magazine Παρακαταθήκη No. 54 2007).

What does the Ravenna Document lead to?

There are good reasons to believe that the Ravenna Document confirms fears that the Orthodox will give in to papal claims, and here's why.

1) The text refers to the “Roman Catholic Church”. This is not a technical term; it has a very specific theological content here. The dialogue is conducted on the condition that this Church is true. At this point, the Orthodox delegation retreated unacceptably far. The Balamand Agreement (1993) recognizes the Roman Catholic Church as a Church in the full sense of the word, and this is a significant departure from the most basic and starting points of the dialogue. While Roman Catholics, recognizing the validity of the sacraments and apostolic succession for the Orthodox Church, remain faithful to the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council, the Orthodox have abandoned the belief of the authoritative holy fathers and councils that the Roman Catholic Church has cut itself off from the One, Holy, The Catholic and Apostolic Church and is a heretical church due to the adoption of heretical dogmas.

2) Shortly before the Ravenna meeting in July 2007, the Vatican issued a guide, “Answers to Questions Concerning Certain Views of the Doctrine of the Church,” in which the local Churches are recognized as “defective” because they do not have communion with the successor of the Apostle Peter. This document is nothing more than a line along which dialogue should develop. And this line is Roman-centric ecumenism as defined by the Second Vatican Council. In the notes to par. 1 Orthodox representatives, despite their assurances that the use of the term “Church” does not contradict the Orthodox Church’s awareness of itself as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, do not, however, also cite the basic principle of Orthodox ecclesiology, which denies the indicated for the Roman Catholic Church signs. At the same time, Catholics declared that outside the Catholic Church in other Churches they recognize only individual elements of the true Church.

3) The mention in the “Ravensky Document” of the apostolic faith, sacraments, and apostolic succession in relation to the Catholic Church is made with such naturalness that one might think that this Church is Orthodox in all these points. However, even Saint Mark Eugenicus questioned the validity of the sacraments of the Catholic Church on the grounds that it had broken away from the true Church, with which it is impossible to disagree. The Catholic Church contains heretical errors such as the Filioque, the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, etc. Due to its schismatic nature, there cannot be apostolic succession in the Catholic Church, for he is still holy. Gregory the Theologian noted that apostolic succession is confirmed by the Orthodox way of thinking, and abolished by the heterodox.

4) The “Ravensky Document” examines two sides of the institution of the Church: conciliarity and power (par. 40-41). The parties agreed that in the first millennium of the life of the Church, the ecclesiological content of conciliarity and authority was embodied in both the East and the West in an Orthodox manner. Of course, in the first millennium conciliarity functioned, and therefore no power in the form of ecumenical primacy or primacy of jurisdiction could develop. But over the centuries, the importance of conciliarity was gradually diminished in the Roman Church, which eventually gave way to the primacy of the Pope. Hence the disagreement between Catholic and Orthodox participants in the dialogue on the interpretation of the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome in the era in question. Since Roman Catholics do not abandon the pope-centric interpretation of the institutions of conciliarity and power in the first millennium of the life of the Church, the agreement of the Ravenna Document tends to recognize the pope’s ecumenical primacy. Only if Catholics agree to interpret the church history of the first millennium in the same way as the Orthodox will it be possible for them to reject the papal innovations of the second millennium. Only under this condition will the discussion at subsequent meetings of the Commission on the interpretation of the terms “conciliarity” and “power” lead to conclusions in an Orthodox vein, i.e. will tend to abolish the primacy of the Pope. However, knowing the strategy of the Vatican, we do not expect that Catholics will abandon their papocentrism, both ancient and modern, because they have “sealed” it with the decisions of their thirteen “ecumenical” councils.

The Vatican's tactic in all dialogues is to try to cancel all theological agreements that run counter to the line of the papal curia. Just as the Orthodox retreated on the issue with the Uniates, so they will retreat in the next dialogues and recognize a certain kind of universal primacy for the Pope.

5) We would like Catholics to abandon the pope-centric interpretation of church history of the first millennium, for the Monk Justin (Popovich) connected the emergence of all other deviations in Catholic doctrine with the question of the primacy of the Pope.

When theological dialogue is conducted on the basis of Orthodox premises, then this is not bad. Only we must firmly adhere to the conciliarly approved position of the Orthodox Church on the issue of papism. The “Ravensky Document” does not show an unconditional paternal and conciliar Orthodox position. It also lacks the spirit that guided Saint Mark Eugenicus during the negotiations on unification at the Ferraro-Florence Council, when he immediately at the beginning proposed the undistorted Creed and its Orthodox interpretation as the basis for discussion. The directness with which Saint Nektarios of Aegina reasoned in his work “On the Causes of the Schism” is missing. And vice versa, an ambiguous “ecclesiology of communion” prevails, in which it is not conceived of communion between Local Churches who are Orthodox in faith, but between the Orthodox Church and the heterodox Roman Church.

There is a clear tendency in the Ravenna Document to present the question of the primacy of the Pope as a "regulation" of papal privileges, rather than as a deep theological problem concerning the Sacrament of Christ itself. To agree with the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church, that is, to accept that one bishop is the head and commander of the entire Church, even if he is also entrusted with the role of a minister, is blasphemy against the Person of Christ, as the only Head of the body of the Church. The only privilege of the Bishop of Rome, with which the Orthodox agree, is the primacy of honor among the five Orthodox patriarchs, and, consequently, the commemoration of the first Bishop of Rome in diptychs. Other prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome are not recognized by the Orthodox. The document contains ambiguous phrases such as “ protoi must recognize the first among them” (par. 10). The Church has always recognized the primacy of the Roman see as long as the Roman bishop was Orthodox, but has never until now recognized him as having any primacy or authority over the entire Church, especially since the Roman Church persists in its heretical dogmas.

At the next meetings of the Commission, a discussion is expected on the role of the Bishop of Rome and his primacy in the “communion of churches.” We, as Orthodox Christians, cannot accept a papal-centric interpretation of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. By virtue of this interpretation of primacy, the Pope is clothed with completely unacceptable privileges, without the consent of the other Churches of the ancient pentarchy and, moreover, in the overthrow of the canonical order of the ancient Church.

From all of the above, it becomes clear that the Ravenna Agreement on Conciliarity and Authority does not meet the criteria of Orthodox ecclesiology so that it could represent a clear basis for further discussion about the primacy of the Pope. When it comes to interpreting the primacy of the Pope in the second millennium, as well as the First and Second Vatican Councils, Orthodox representatives should be guided by the Orthodox teaching of the Holy Fathers, and not by a conformist way of thinking, depending on the demands of the time or the imperious mood of the Vatican. Recognition of any prerogative for the Pope that is contrary to Orthodox ecclesiology will undoubtedly mean Uniate unity, with which we will not agree.

Presented in abbreviation.

About him