Pope�s primacy

If we look closely at the history of the quarrel between Eastern and Western Churches we shall find out that there have two quite different stages in the discussion of the Pope�s primacy. On the first stage, in 4-13 cc. the discussion went between Byzantine Orthodox and Latin theologians. Western Christians seemed to be unanimous in agreement about the role of the Pope in the Church.

Then, in 13-19 centuries discussions between Eastern Orthodox and Western theologians become dull repetition of the aged-old arguments, but a new discussion began, now inside Western Christianity. First, the Pope�s primacy had been criticized by Roman Catholic theologians, who promoted instead the teaching on conciliarism (stating that Ecumenical Council have the higher authority than Popes.) This discussion continued even in XIX century and it existence was the main reason why the dogma about Pope�s primacy was maintained as late as 1870, and why the part of Roman Catholic didn�t agree with this dogma. But, certainly, much more important was the revolt of Luther and Reformation against Papacy. This revolt happened not in X century, when Popes have been most vicious, but in XIV. All rational arguments and Bible quotations which could be used against Rome had been known in five centuries before Luther or great "conciliarists"of XV c. What happened which made the difference?

The crucial step in maintaining Pope�s primacy was made by Popes of XI-XIII cc., from Gregory VII to Innocent III. They didn�t say anything unheard in the times of Pope Leo the Great. They only made the doctrine more articulate. "Innocent himself defined the limits of his full authority" (Jedin, 4, 142). "Under Innocent III the Pope�s position in the Church did not become something basically different. But he gave to the doctrine of the primacy a strict formulation" (id., 143, cited from Tillmann).

"To define", "to give a strict formulation" was to do something very Western in a sense of distinction. East can live under most totalitarian secular regime, under the dictatorship of a Patriarch in church matters, but it is not bothered until dictator don�t seek to put a strict distinction between his power and obligations and duties of others. Such distinction makes the whole system different. East simply prefer not to feel power as something different, or opposed, or separated from the society in general. East enjoy vagueness in which there is no distinctive difference between tzar and a slave as there is no opposition between body and nature. The limits are not defined, everything is in semi-darkness. Not the Pope�s primacy is bad, but the will of Popes do give strict definition to this primacy makes Easterners feel themselves ill and uncertain. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox prefer to remain on the ancient position: certainly, Church has only one Head, Jesus Christ, certainly, there must be some hierarchy in the Church, but it is unnecessary to make attempts to give strict definitions to rights and limits of the power of church hierarchs. Some things must remain undefined. By the way, while the theologians gave precise definition of the Pope�s power, they didn�t bother to do the same with Emperors. "To the imperial office ...pertained a certain universality that had never been precisely defined." (Jedin, 4, 143).

Protestants are in one sphere at least more Easterners than Westerners. East Orthodox Christians prefer not to give any strict definition to the authority in the Church, not to formulate, where the authority of council finishes, the authority of bishops begins. Everything in intermingled. Modern Eastern Orthodox theology speaks about the "Church multitude" (pliroma in Greek) as the main authority in the Church. Who constitutes this "multitude"? Not bishops and priests (there is no teaching about magisterium), not even Ecumenical Councils, but the Church in general. And through which institution does this "Church in general" speak? There is no definite institution, the Church teaching organize itself by some "organic process."

This sounds very vague to the Western ear. But such attitude is more ancient that Roman Catholic teaching about Pope and magisterium. It is important to point that the same vagueness can be detected in the attitude of Protestants to the Bible. Protestants definitely speak about the Bible as the highest authority, and this makes them different from Eastern Orthodox. Where the Protestants place the Bible, Eastern Orthodox place the "Church in general". But just as Eastern Orthodox avoid explaining of how does "Church in general" express herself, so Protestants (from the Eastern Orthodox point of view at least) avoid explaining of how does the Bible express herself.

In reality, "Church in general" doesn�t express herself directly, she expresses itself through contradictory and complicated net of interpretations of the position of "Church in general" of different Church institutions, theologians, hierarchs, laypeople without any formal and definite procedures. Bible doesn�t express herself directly to Protestants, but a large, complicated and contradictory net of different interpretations of the Bible works is at work in Protestantism.

From the Roman Catholic point of view both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant ways of thinking, discussion and decisions of what the authority says is chaotic, lacks of logical distinctions, rational borders between different positions and views.

Most people, who identify themselves as belonging to the "modern", "Western" civilization, consiensly prefer the rational, logical way of solving problems. That is why Eastern Catholics and Protestant tends to look upon their theological behavior as more rational then it is in reality. However, most modern Western civilized people in their everyday life behave like Easterners, like their most ancient ancestors, relying not so much on logic, as on on the mixture of both logic, intuition, emotions, passions, rational believes.

Protestants, however, can be Easternly irrational and vague in their attitudes towards the authority in the Church, but they are quite Western in political and economical thinking. They�ve refused to adopt the first result of the rational thinking in the West (teaching on Pope�s infallibility), but they adopt the style in general.