Primacy of Honor or the Honor of PrimacyCanonical Considerations

Michael Mercado

September 2014

Mercado 1

In our rich canonical tradition we witness many ways in

which the canons help to organize and normalize Church structure

One of the ways in which this is accomplished is in the

acknowledgement of a primacy Primacy in the ecclesiological

understanding has been understood in a couple of ways One of the

ways in which is can be understood is that of it being merely an

honorific title where there are no real means by which the primus

is separated from the other hierarchs of similar status (such as

we see with the heads of autocephalous Churches in the

Patriarchal model1) In this case the argument is made that the

1 We see in both the Metropolitan and Patriarchal models for church structure that the Metropolitan has authority over other bishops within his own province however the Metropolitan does not have authority over another Metropolitan nor can he interfere in the business of another Metropolitanrsquos province In the Patriarchal model the Metropolitan essentially has the same role however it is understood that certain provinces have earned a level of honor respect and authority due to spiritual and political importance that is greater than the others In this case these Metropolitans took the title ldquoPatriarchrdquo and were charged with having authority over the other Metropolitans in the areas that fell under the Patriarchrsquos jurisdiction

Mercado 2

primus enjoys only the title as ldquofirst among equalsrdquo without

having any real distinguishable prerogatives that separate him

from the rest of the heads of the autocephalous Churches On the

other hand primacy can be viewed in another way in which the

very nature of primacy with additional prerogatives constitutes a

separation that enables the primusrsquo role to be more than just an

honorary title In this understanding we see that the

prerogatives belonging explicitly to the primus enable it to be

separated from the other heads of the autocephalous Churches

therefore making it unequal to the others The primacy of New

Rome that is Constantinople has been established in canonical

tradition for well over 1500 years the roots of which can be

found as we will soon see in the 2nd and 4th Ecumenical

Councils The question that now concerns us is however how do

we understand primacy in light of the various other canons

relating to primacy and the prerogatives granted to the primus

Furthermore what does this mean for us as Orthodox Christians

today

To gain a better understanding of the nature of primacy in

our canonical tradition we must look towards several canons

Mercado 3

which have a multitude of implications for how we understand this

reality Some people within the Orthodox Church are not aware

that a primacy does in fact exist or there is often a

misconception as to our understanding of primacy When one hears

the word ldquoprimacyrdquo or ldquoprimusrdquo it can conjure up images of

supreme rule without any limitations or a structure of hierarchy

identical to that of the Pope of Rome insofar as he has authority

over all other bishops and can involve himself in all Church

disputes everywhere however to apply this view of primacy to

our own understanding as Orthodox Christians would be a distorted

view of primacy within our own tradition and such images are

usually conjured up by those who fear everything that is western

Instead we will be looking at the evidence concerning primacy

within our canonical tradition and its implications in relation

to our current study We will start by looking at canons that

provide us with insight and principles regarding how one can

assume a degree of authority in a given region

Canon 6 of Nicaea I

Mercado 4

When looking at degrees of authority within our canonical

tradition we can primarily turn our attention to canon 6 of the

First Ecumenical Council The text reads thusly

ldquoΤὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ Πενταπόλειὥστε τὸν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἐπίσκοπον πάντων τούτων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίανἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ τοῦτο σύνηθές ἐστιν Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰτὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις τὰ πρεσβεῖα σῴζεσθαι ταῖςἐκκλησίαις Καθόλου δὲ πρόδηλον ἐκεῖνο ὅτι εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώμης τοῦμητροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος τὸν τοιοῦτον ἡ μεγάλη σύνοδος ὥρισεμὴ δεῖν εἶναι ἐπίσκοπον Ἐὰν μέντοι τῇ κοινῇ πάντων ψήφῳ εὐλόγῳ οὔσῃκαὶ κατὰ κανόνα ἐκκλησιαστικόν δύο ἢ τρεῖς δι᾿ οἰκείαν φιλονεικίανἀντιλέγωσι κρατείτω ἡ τῶν πλειόνων ψῆφοςrdquo2

ldquoLet the Ancient customs in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis prevail that thebishop in Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these since the like iscustomary for the bishop of Rome also Likewise in Antioch and the otherprovinces let the Churches retain their privileges And this is to universallyunderstood that if anyone were to be made bishop without the consent ofthe Metropolitan the great synod has declared that such a man ought notto be a bishop If however two or three bishops shall from natural love ofcontradiction oppose the common suffrage of the rest it beingreasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law then let thechoice of the majority prevailrdquo3

Though saying nothing about a primus and nothing concerning

Constantinople it provides us with principles regarding

authority To give some historical background to this canon we

will discuss some major figures Melitius of Lycopolis was a

2 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 128 3 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Niceae I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV pg 15

Mercado 5

bishop in Egypt at the beginning of the 4th century During his

tenure there had been many persecutions under the emperor

Diocletian which had produced a tremendous amount of martyrs but

also as in any other persecution there were those who were

threatened with martyrdom and retracted their faith Melitius

said that those who retraced their faith in the midst of these

persecutions must not be easily readmitted to the Christian

faith4

The bishop of Alexandria Peter who was well respected

suggested that these people be readmitted to the Church in an

easier manner than that which was suggested by Melitius In time

Melitius became more daring insofar as he started to ordain

bishops that were not in his canonical jurisdiction and he made a

schism in the Church whereby he and his believers held the

position that those who abandoned their faith in persecutions

were not to be readmitted to the faith in any imminent way This

position actually gained some traction as Meletius had about

twenty-nine other bishops support himmdashsome of whom he himself

ordained When Peter tried to use his authority and position as

4 Schaff Philip ldquoHistory of the Christian Churchrdquo pg 114

Mercado 6

bishop of Alexandria in an attempt to have Melitius fall into

line with the rest of the Christian Church Melitius resisted and

it became an issue which would eventually be discussed and

decided at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 but not

totally defeated until a later time5

Though seemingly displaced from the importance of the issue

at hand we come to realize that this canon is of importance

since it as we have seen previously provides principles by

which we are to understand the authority of certain bishops In

the canon we see that the bishop of Alexandria has authority

over other bishops within a certain region and the canon even

makes a correlation to that of the see of Rome This is important

because it helps us to understand that this is by no means an

isolated event but rather it shows that the Fathers had a notion

that certain cities have bishops who have a greater amount of

5 Though some say that Melitius started his polemic with Peter of Alexandria out of overzealous ambition or out of sheer arrogance it is unclear as to whyhe was at odds with the bishop of Alexandria Peter later deposed Melitius andwhen this issue was brought before the Council at Nicaea a compromise that included restricting the rights of Melitius while also not deposing the bishops who he ordained seemed to set down some canonical principles for jurisdictional authority however the schism of Melitius continued even afterthe Council of Nicaea as it gained support from the Arian heresy and was not defeated until the end of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century

Mercado 7

authority6 In this case Alexandria was given authority over

Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It is also interesting that within

the canon it states ldquoLet the ancient customshellipprevailrdquo This is important

as well since it lays down the historical and tradition precedent

describing that this is the way in which these areas were being

operated at this time Thus even though the bishop of Alexandria

at this time was just a Metropolitan (and later officially became

a Patriarch) it shows that there are some sees which have an

authority over other metropolises7 Thus we see that certain

bishops are given additional authority not only over the local

Churches they serve but over a larger geographical area that

includes other bishops as well

In light of this we can begin to apply these findings to

give us a clearer understanding of our own ecclesiology This

canon establishes the right for Constantinople to have

jurisdiction over its own areas and it also shows us that

Constantinople as a see that has certain authority has an

elevated status to begin with (that of Patriarchate) Though at

the time Constantinople had no such standing and the status was

6 Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils vol I pg 397 7 Ibid pg 392

Mercado 8

that of Rome Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem the city of

Constantinople was making a name for itself both as a seat of

political power and for ecclesiastical jurisdiction Having now

established that certain sees have authority in their own areas

and that a primacy is present in the person of the Patriarch of

Rome8 we can move on to the next set of canons which help to

define Constantinoplersquos role even further

Canon 3 of Constantinople I

The text in canon 3 of Constantinople I reads thusly

ldquoΤὸν μέν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆςτιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμηνrdquo9

ldquoThe Bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative ofhonor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Romerdquo10

In this canon we see that Constantinople is granted the

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo or the ldquoprerogative of honorrdquo or as it is

translated here after the bishop of Rome since Constantinople is

considered to be the ldquoNew Romerdquo It might be prudent however to

8 As we have seen previously laid out by canon 6 of Nicaea I 9 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173 10 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 1

In our rich canonical tradition we witness many ways in

which the canons help to organize and normalize Church structure

One of the ways in which this is accomplished is in the

acknowledgement of a primacy Primacy in the ecclesiological

understanding has been understood in a couple of ways One of the

ways in which is can be understood is that of it being merely an

honorific title where there are no real means by which the primus

is separated from the other hierarchs of similar status (such as

we see with the heads of autocephalous Churches in the

Patriarchal model1) In this case the argument is made that the

1 We see in both the Metropolitan and Patriarchal models for church structure that the Metropolitan has authority over other bishops within his own province however the Metropolitan does not have authority over another Metropolitan nor can he interfere in the business of another Metropolitanrsquos province In the Patriarchal model the Metropolitan essentially has the same role however it is understood that certain provinces have earned a level of honor respect and authority due to spiritual and political importance that is greater than the others In this case these Metropolitans took the title ldquoPatriarchrdquo and were charged with having authority over the other Metropolitans in the areas that fell under the Patriarchrsquos jurisdiction

Mercado 2

primus enjoys only the title as ldquofirst among equalsrdquo without

having any real distinguishable prerogatives that separate him

from the rest of the heads of the autocephalous Churches On the

other hand primacy can be viewed in another way in which the

very nature of primacy with additional prerogatives constitutes a

separation that enables the primusrsquo role to be more than just an

honorary title In this understanding we see that the

prerogatives belonging explicitly to the primus enable it to be

separated from the other heads of the autocephalous Churches

therefore making it unequal to the others The primacy of New

Rome that is Constantinople has been established in canonical

tradition for well over 1500 years the roots of which can be

found as we will soon see in the 2nd and 4th Ecumenical

Councils The question that now concerns us is however how do

we understand primacy in light of the various other canons

relating to primacy and the prerogatives granted to the primus

Furthermore what does this mean for us as Orthodox Christians

today

To gain a better understanding of the nature of primacy in

our canonical tradition we must look towards several canons

Mercado 3

which have a multitude of implications for how we understand this

reality Some people within the Orthodox Church are not aware

that a primacy does in fact exist or there is often a

misconception as to our understanding of primacy When one hears

the word ldquoprimacyrdquo or ldquoprimusrdquo it can conjure up images of

supreme rule without any limitations or a structure of hierarchy

identical to that of the Pope of Rome insofar as he has authority

over all other bishops and can involve himself in all Church

disputes everywhere however to apply this view of primacy to

our own understanding as Orthodox Christians would be a distorted

view of primacy within our own tradition and such images are

usually conjured up by those who fear everything that is western

Instead we will be looking at the evidence concerning primacy

within our canonical tradition and its implications in relation

to our current study We will start by looking at canons that

provide us with insight and principles regarding how one can

assume a degree of authority in a given region

Canon 6 of Nicaea I

Mercado 4

When looking at degrees of authority within our canonical

tradition we can primarily turn our attention to canon 6 of the

First Ecumenical Council The text reads thusly

ldquoΤὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ Πενταπόλειὥστε τὸν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἐπίσκοπον πάντων τούτων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίανἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ τοῦτο σύνηθές ἐστιν Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰτὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις τὰ πρεσβεῖα σῴζεσθαι ταῖςἐκκλησίαις Καθόλου δὲ πρόδηλον ἐκεῖνο ὅτι εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώμης τοῦμητροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος τὸν τοιοῦτον ἡ μεγάλη σύνοδος ὥρισεμὴ δεῖν εἶναι ἐπίσκοπον Ἐὰν μέντοι τῇ κοινῇ πάντων ψήφῳ εὐλόγῳ οὔσῃκαὶ κατὰ κανόνα ἐκκλησιαστικόν δύο ἢ τρεῖς δι᾿ οἰκείαν φιλονεικίανἀντιλέγωσι κρατείτω ἡ τῶν πλειόνων ψῆφοςrdquo2

ldquoLet the Ancient customs in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis prevail that thebishop in Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these since the like iscustomary for the bishop of Rome also Likewise in Antioch and the otherprovinces let the Churches retain their privileges And this is to universallyunderstood that if anyone were to be made bishop without the consent ofthe Metropolitan the great synod has declared that such a man ought notto be a bishop If however two or three bishops shall from natural love ofcontradiction oppose the common suffrage of the rest it beingreasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law then let thechoice of the majority prevailrdquo3

Though saying nothing about a primus and nothing concerning

Constantinople it provides us with principles regarding

authority To give some historical background to this canon we

will discuss some major figures Melitius of Lycopolis was a

2 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 128 3 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Niceae I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV pg 15

Mercado 5

bishop in Egypt at the beginning of the 4th century During his

tenure there had been many persecutions under the emperor

Diocletian which had produced a tremendous amount of martyrs but

also as in any other persecution there were those who were

threatened with martyrdom and retracted their faith Melitius

said that those who retraced their faith in the midst of these

persecutions must not be easily readmitted to the Christian

faith4

The bishop of Alexandria Peter who was well respected

suggested that these people be readmitted to the Church in an

easier manner than that which was suggested by Melitius In time

Melitius became more daring insofar as he started to ordain

bishops that were not in his canonical jurisdiction and he made a

schism in the Church whereby he and his believers held the

position that those who abandoned their faith in persecutions

were not to be readmitted to the faith in any imminent way This

position actually gained some traction as Meletius had about

twenty-nine other bishops support himmdashsome of whom he himself

ordained When Peter tried to use his authority and position as

4 Schaff Philip ldquoHistory of the Christian Churchrdquo pg 114

Mercado 6

bishop of Alexandria in an attempt to have Melitius fall into

line with the rest of the Christian Church Melitius resisted and

it became an issue which would eventually be discussed and

decided at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 but not

totally defeated until a later time5

Though seemingly displaced from the importance of the issue

at hand we come to realize that this canon is of importance

since it as we have seen previously provides principles by

which we are to understand the authority of certain bishops In

the canon we see that the bishop of Alexandria has authority

over other bishops within a certain region and the canon even

makes a correlation to that of the see of Rome This is important

because it helps us to understand that this is by no means an

isolated event but rather it shows that the Fathers had a notion

that certain cities have bishops who have a greater amount of

5 Though some say that Melitius started his polemic with Peter of Alexandria out of overzealous ambition or out of sheer arrogance it is unclear as to whyhe was at odds with the bishop of Alexandria Peter later deposed Melitius andwhen this issue was brought before the Council at Nicaea a compromise that included restricting the rights of Melitius while also not deposing the bishops who he ordained seemed to set down some canonical principles for jurisdictional authority however the schism of Melitius continued even afterthe Council of Nicaea as it gained support from the Arian heresy and was not defeated until the end of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century

Mercado 7

authority6 In this case Alexandria was given authority over

Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It is also interesting that within

the canon it states ldquoLet the ancient customshellipprevailrdquo This is important

as well since it lays down the historical and tradition precedent

describing that this is the way in which these areas were being

operated at this time Thus even though the bishop of Alexandria

at this time was just a Metropolitan (and later officially became

a Patriarch) it shows that there are some sees which have an

authority over other metropolises7 Thus we see that certain

bishops are given additional authority not only over the local

Churches they serve but over a larger geographical area that

includes other bishops as well

In light of this we can begin to apply these findings to

give us a clearer understanding of our own ecclesiology This

canon establishes the right for Constantinople to have

jurisdiction over its own areas and it also shows us that

Constantinople as a see that has certain authority has an

elevated status to begin with (that of Patriarchate) Though at

the time Constantinople had no such standing and the status was

6 Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils vol I pg 397 7 Ibid pg 392

Mercado 8

that of Rome Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem the city of

Constantinople was making a name for itself both as a seat of

political power and for ecclesiastical jurisdiction Having now

established that certain sees have authority in their own areas

and that a primacy is present in the person of the Patriarch of

Rome8 we can move on to the next set of canons which help to

define Constantinoplersquos role even further

Canon 3 of Constantinople I

The text in canon 3 of Constantinople I reads thusly

ldquoΤὸν μέν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆςτιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμηνrdquo9

ldquoThe Bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative ofhonor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Romerdquo10

In this canon we see that Constantinople is granted the

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo or the ldquoprerogative of honorrdquo or as it is

translated here after the bishop of Rome since Constantinople is

considered to be the ldquoNew Romerdquo It might be prudent however to

8 As we have seen previously laid out by canon 6 of Nicaea I 9 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173 10 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 2

primus enjoys only the title as ldquofirst among equalsrdquo without

having any real distinguishable prerogatives that separate him

from the rest of the heads of the autocephalous Churches On the

other hand primacy can be viewed in another way in which the

very nature of primacy with additional prerogatives constitutes a

separation that enables the primusrsquo role to be more than just an

honorary title In this understanding we see that the

prerogatives belonging explicitly to the primus enable it to be

separated from the other heads of the autocephalous Churches

therefore making it unequal to the others The primacy of New

Rome that is Constantinople has been established in canonical

tradition for well over 1500 years the roots of which can be

found as we will soon see in the 2nd and 4th Ecumenical

Councils The question that now concerns us is however how do

we understand primacy in light of the various other canons

relating to primacy and the prerogatives granted to the primus

Furthermore what does this mean for us as Orthodox Christians

today

To gain a better understanding of the nature of primacy in

our canonical tradition we must look towards several canons

Mercado 3

which have a multitude of implications for how we understand this

reality Some people within the Orthodox Church are not aware

that a primacy does in fact exist or there is often a

misconception as to our understanding of primacy When one hears

the word ldquoprimacyrdquo or ldquoprimusrdquo it can conjure up images of

supreme rule without any limitations or a structure of hierarchy

identical to that of the Pope of Rome insofar as he has authority

over all other bishops and can involve himself in all Church

disputes everywhere however to apply this view of primacy to

our own understanding as Orthodox Christians would be a distorted

view of primacy within our own tradition and such images are

usually conjured up by those who fear everything that is western

Instead we will be looking at the evidence concerning primacy

within our canonical tradition and its implications in relation

to our current study We will start by looking at canons that

provide us with insight and principles regarding how one can

assume a degree of authority in a given region

Canon 6 of Nicaea I

Mercado 4

When looking at degrees of authority within our canonical

tradition we can primarily turn our attention to canon 6 of the

First Ecumenical Council The text reads thusly

ldquoΤὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ Πενταπόλειὥστε τὸν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἐπίσκοπον πάντων τούτων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίανἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ τοῦτο σύνηθές ἐστιν Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰτὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις τὰ πρεσβεῖα σῴζεσθαι ταῖςἐκκλησίαις Καθόλου δὲ πρόδηλον ἐκεῖνο ὅτι εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώμης τοῦμητροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος τὸν τοιοῦτον ἡ μεγάλη σύνοδος ὥρισεμὴ δεῖν εἶναι ἐπίσκοπον Ἐὰν μέντοι τῇ κοινῇ πάντων ψήφῳ εὐλόγῳ οὔσῃκαὶ κατὰ κανόνα ἐκκλησιαστικόν δύο ἢ τρεῖς δι᾿ οἰκείαν φιλονεικίανἀντιλέγωσι κρατείτω ἡ τῶν πλειόνων ψῆφοςrdquo2

ldquoLet the Ancient customs in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis prevail that thebishop in Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these since the like iscustomary for the bishop of Rome also Likewise in Antioch and the otherprovinces let the Churches retain their privileges And this is to universallyunderstood that if anyone were to be made bishop without the consent ofthe Metropolitan the great synod has declared that such a man ought notto be a bishop If however two or three bishops shall from natural love ofcontradiction oppose the common suffrage of the rest it beingreasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law then let thechoice of the majority prevailrdquo3

Though saying nothing about a primus and nothing concerning

Constantinople it provides us with principles regarding

authority To give some historical background to this canon we

will discuss some major figures Melitius of Lycopolis was a

2 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 128 3 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Niceae I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV pg 15

Mercado 5

bishop in Egypt at the beginning of the 4th century During his

tenure there had been many persecutions under the emperor

Diocletian which had produced a tremendous amount of martyrs but

also as in any other persecution there were those who were

threatened with martyrdom and retracted their faith Melitius

said that those who retraced their faith in the midst of these

persecutions must not be easily readmitted to the Christian

faith4

The bishop of Alexandria Peter who was well respected

suggested that these people be readmitted to the Church in an

easier manner than that which was suggested by Melitius In time

Melitius became more daring insofar as he started to ordain

bishops that were not in his canonical jurisdiction and he made a

schism in the Church whereby he and his believers held the

position that those who abandoned their faith in persecutions

were not to be readmitted to the faith in any imminent way This

position actually gained some traction as Meletius had about

twenty-nine other bishops support himmdashsome of whom he himself

ordained When Peter tried to use his authority and position as

4 Schaff Philip ldquoHistory of the Christian Churchrdquo pg 114

Mercado 6

bishop of Alexandria in an attempt to have Melitius fall into

line with the rest of the Christian Church Melitius resisted and

it became an issue which would eventually be discussed and

decided at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 but not

totally defeated until a later time5

Though seemingly displaced from the importance of the issue

at hand we come to realize that this canon is of importance

since it as we have seen previously provides principles by

which we are to understand the authority of certain bishops In

the canon we see that the bishop of Alexandria has authority

over other bishops within a certain region and the canon even

makes a correlation to that of the see of Rome This is important

because it helps us to understand that this is by no means an

isolated event but rather it shows that the Fathers had a notion

that certain cities have bishops who have a greater amount of

5 Though some say that Melitius started his polemic with Peter of Alexandria out of overzealous ambition or out of sheer arrogance it is unclear as to whyhe was at odds with the bishop of Alexandria Peter later deposed Melitius andwhen this issue was brought before the Council at Nicaea a compromise that included restricting the rights of Melitius while also not deposing the bishops who he ordained seemed to set down some canonical principles for jurisdictional authority however the schism of Melitius continued even afterthe Council of Nicaea as it gained support from the Arian heresy and was not defeated until the end of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century

Mercado 7

authority6 In this case Alexandria was given authority over

Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It is also interesting that within

the canon it states ldquoLet the ancient customshellipprevailrdquo This is important

as well since it lays down the historical and tradition precedent

describing that this is the way in which these areas were being

operated at this time Thus even though the bishop of Alexandria

at this time was just a Metropolitan (and later officially became

a Patriarch) it shows that there are some sees which have an

authority over other metropolises7 Thus we see that certain

bishops are given additional authority not only over the local

Churches they serve but over a larger geographical area that

includes other bishops as well

In light of this we can begin to apply these findings to

give us a clearer understanding of our own ecclesiology This

canon establishes the right for Constantinople to have

jurisdiction over its own areas and it also shows us that

Constantinople as a see that has certain authority has an

elevated status to begin with (that of Patriarchate) Though at

the time Constantinople had no such standing and the status was

6 Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils vol I pg 397 7 Ibid pg 392

Mercado 8

that of Rome Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem the city of

Constantinople was making a name for itself both as a seat of

political power and for ecclesiastical jurisdiction Having now

established that certain sees have authority in their own areas

and that a primacy is present in the person of the Patriarch of

Rome8 we can move on to the next set of canons which help to

define Constantinoplersquos role even further

Canon 3 of Constantinople I

The text in canon 3 of Constantinople I reads thusly

ldquoΤὸν μέν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆςτιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμηνrdquo9

ldquoThe Bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative ofhonor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Romerdquo10

In this canon we see that Constantinople is granted the

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo or the ldquoprerogative of honorrdquo or as it is

translated here after the bishop of Rome since Constantinople is

considered to be the ldquoNew Romerdquo It might be prudent however to

8 As we have seen previously laid out by canon 6 of Nicaea I 9 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173 10 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 3

which have a multitude of implications for how we understand this

reality Some people within the Orthodox Church are not aware

that a primacy does in fact exist or there is often a

misconception as to our understanding of primacy When one hears

the word ldquoprimacyrdquo or ldquoprimusrdquo it can conjure up images of

supreme rule without any limitations or a structure of hierarchy

identical to that of the Pope of Rome insofar as he has authority

over all other bishops and can involve himself in all Church

disputes everywhere however to apply this view of primacy to

our own understanding as Orthodox Christians would be a distorted

view of primacy within our own tradition and such images are

usually conjured up by those who fear everything that is western

Instead we will be looking at the evidence concerning primacy

within our canonical tradition and its implications in relation

to our current study We will start by looking at canons that

provide us with insight and principles regarding how one can

assume a degree of authority in a given region

Canon 6 of Nicaea I

Mercado 4

When looking at degrees of authority within our canonical

tradition we can primarily turn our attention to canon 6 of the

First Ecumenical Council The text reads thusly

ldquoΤὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ Πενταπόλειὥστε τὸν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἐπίσκοπον πάντων τούτων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίανἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ τοῦτο σύνηθές ἐστιν Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰτὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις τὰ πρεσβεῖα σῴζεσθαι ταῖςἐκκλησίαις Καθόλου δὲ πρόδηλον ἐκεῖνο ὅτι εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώμης τοῦμητροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος τὸν τοιοῦτον ἡ μεγάλη σύνοδος ὥρισεμὴ δεῖν εἶναι ἐπίσκοπον Ἐὰν μέντοι τῇ κοινῇ πάντων ψήφῳ εὐλόγῳ οὔσῃκαὶ κατὰ κανόνα ἐκκλησιαστικόν δύο ἢ τρεῖς δι᾿ οἰκείαν φιλονεικίανἀντιλέγωσι κρατείτω ἡ τῶν πλειόνων ψῆφοςrdquo2

ldquoLet the Ancient customs in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis prevail that thebishop in Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these since the like iscustomary for the bishop of Rome also Likewise in Antioch and the otherprovinces let the Churches retain their privileges And this is to universallyunderstood that if anyone were to be made bishop without the consent ofthe Metropolitan the great synod has declared that such a man ought notto be a bishop If however two or three bishops shall from natural love ofcontradiction oppose the common suffrage of the rest it beingreasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law then let thechoice of the majority prevailrdquo3

Though saying nothing about a primus and nothing concerning

Constantinople it provides us with principles regarding

authority To give some historical background to this canon we

will discuss some major figures Melitius of Lycopolis was a

2 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 128 3 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Niceae I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV pg 15

Mercado 5

bishop in Egypt at the beginning of the 4th century During his

tenure there had been many persecutions under the emperor

Diocletian which had produced a tremendous amount of martyrs but

also as in any other persecution there were those who were

threatened with martyrdom and retracted their faith Melitius

said that those who retraced their faith in the midst of these

persecutions must not be easily readmitted to the Christian

faith4

The bishop of Alexandria Peter who was well respected

suggested that these people be readmitted to the Church in an

easier manner than that which was suggested by Melitius In time

Melitius became more daring insofar as he started to ordain

bishops that were not in his canonical jurisdiction and he made a

schism in the Church whereby he and his believers held the

position that those who abandoned their faith in persecutions

were not to be readmitted to the faith in any imminent way This

position actually gained some traction as Meletius had about

twenty-nine other bishops support himmdashsome of whom he himself

ordained When Peter tried to use his authority and position as

4 Schaff Philip ldquoHistory of the Christian Churchrdquo pg 114

Mercado 6

bishop of Alexandria in an attempt to have Melitius fall into

line with the rest of the Christian Church Melitius resisted and

it became an issue which would eventually be discussed and

decided at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 but not

totally defeated until a later time5

Though seemingly displaced from the importance of the issue

at hand we come to realize that this canon is of importance

since it as we have seen previously provides principles by

which we are to understand the authority of certain bishops In

the canon we see that the bishop of Alexandria has authority

over other bishops within a certain region and the canon even

makes a correlation to that of the see of Rome This is important

because it helps us to understand that this is by no means an

isolated event but rather it shows that the Fathers had a notion

that certain cities have bishops who have a greater amount of

5 Though some say that Melitius started his polemic with Peter of Alexandria out of overzealous ambition or out of sheer arrogance it is unclear as to whyhe was at odds with the bishop of Alexandria Peter later deposed Melitius andwhen this issue was brought before the Council at Nicaea a compromise that included restricting the rights of Melitius while also not deposing the bishops who he ordained seemed to set down some canonical principles for jurisdictional authority however the schism of Melitius continued even afterthe Council of Nicaea as it gained support from the Arian heresy and was not defeated until the end of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century

Mercado 7

authority6 In this case Alexandria was given authority over

Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It is also interesting that within

the canon it states ldquoLet the ancient customshellipprevailrdquo This is important

as well since it lays down the historical and tradition precedent

describing that this is the way in which these areas were being

operated at this time Thus even though the bishop of Alexandria

at this time was just a Metropolitan (and later officially became

a Patriarch) it shows that there are some sees which have an

authority over other metropolises7 Thus we see that certain

bishops are given additional authority not only over the local

Churches they serve but over a larger geographical area that

includes other bishops as well

In light of this we can begin to apply these findings to

give us a clearer understanding of our own ecclesiology This

canon establishes the right for Constantinople to have

jurisdiction over its own areas and it also shows us that

Constantinople as a see that has certain authority has an

elevated status to begin with (that of Patriarchate) Though at

the time Constantinople had no such standing and the status was

6 Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils vol I pg 397 7 Ibid pg 392

Mercado 8

that of Rome Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem the city of

Constantinople was making a name for itself both as a seat of

political power and for ecclesiastical jurisdiction Having now

established that certain sees have authority in their own areas

and that a primacy is present in the person of the Patriarch of

Rome8 we can move on to the next set of canons which help to

define Constantinoplersquos role even further

Canon 3 of Constantinople I

The text in canon 3 of Constantinople I reads thusly

ldquoΤὸν μέν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆςτιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμηνrdquo9

ldquoThe Bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative ofhonor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Romerdquo10

In this canon we see that Constantinople is granted the

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo or the ldquoprerogative of honorrdquo or as it is

translated here after the bishop of Rome since Constantinople is

considered to be the ldquoNew Romerdquo It might be prudent however to

8 As we have seen previously laid out by canon 6 of Nicaea I 9 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173 10 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 4

When looking at degrees of authority within our canonical

tradition we can primarily turn our attention to canon 6 of the

First Ecumenical Council The text reads thusly

ldquoΤὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ Πενταπόλειὥστε τὸν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἐπίσκοπον πάντων τούτων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίανἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ τοῦτο σύνηθές ἐστιν Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰτὴν Ἀντιόχειαν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις τὰ πρεσβεῖα σῴζεσθαι ταῖςἐκκλησίαις Καθόλου δὲ πρόδηλον ἐκεῖνο ὅτι εἴ τις χωρὶς γνώμης τοῦμητροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος τὸν τοιοῦτον ἡ μεγάλη σύνοδος ὥρισεμὴ δεῖν εἶναι ἐπίσκοπον Ἐὰν μέντοι τῇ κοινῇ πάντων ψήφῳ εὐλόγῳ οὔσῃκαὶ κατὰ κανόνα ἐκκλησιαστικόν δύο ἢ τρεῖς δι᾿ οἰκείαν φιλονεικίανἀντιλέγωσι κρατείτω ἡ τῶν πλειόνων ψῆφοςrdquo2

ldquoLet the Ancient customs in Egypt Libya and Pentapolis prevail that thebishop in Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these since the like iscustomary for the bishop of Rome also Likewise in Antioch and the otherprovinces let the Churches retain their privileges And this is to universallyunderstood that if anyone were to be made bishop without the consent ofthe Metropolitan the great synod has declared that such a man ought notto be a bishop If however two or three bishops shall from natural love ofcontradiction oppose the common suffrage of the rest it beingreasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law then let thechoice of the majority prevailrdquo3

Though saying nothing about a primus and nothing concerning

Constantinople it provides us with principles regarding

authority To give some historical background to this canon we

will discuss some major figures Melitius of Lycopolis was a

2 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 128 3 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Niceae I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV pg 15

Mercado 5

bishop in Egypt at the beginning of the 4th century During his

tenure there had been many persecutions under the emperor

Diocletian which had produced a tremendous amount of martyrs but

also as in any other persecution there were those who were

threatened with martyrdom and retracted their faith Melitius

said that those who retraced their faith in the midst of these

persecutions must not be easily readmitted to the Christian

faith4

The bishop of Alexandria Peter who was well respected

suggested that these people be readmitted to the Church in an

easier manner than that which was suggested by Melitius In time

Melitius became more daring insofar as he started to ordain

bishops that were not in his canonical jurisdiction and he made a

schism in the Church whereby he and his believers held the

position that those who abandoned their faith in persecutions

were not to be readmitted to the faith in any imminent way This

position actually gained some traction as Meletius had about

twenty-nine other bishops support himmdashsome of whom he himself

ordained When Peter tried to use his authority and position as

4 Schaff Philip ldquoHistory of the Christian Churchrdquo pg 114

Mercado 6

bishop of Alexandria in an attempt to have Melitius fall into

line with the rest of the Christian Church Melitius resisted and

it became an issue which would eventually be discussed and

decided at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 but not

totally defeated until a later time5

Though seemingly displaced from the importance of the issue

at hand we come to realize that this canon is of importance

since it as we have seen previously provides principles by

which we are to understand the authority of certain bishops In

the canon we see that the bishop of Alexandria has authority

over other bishops within a certain region and the canon even

makes a correlation to that of the see of Rome This is important

because it helps us to understand that this is by no means an

isolated event but rather it shows that the Fathers had a notion

that certain cities have bishops who have a greater amount of

5 Though some say that Melitius started his polemic with Peter of Alexandria out of overzealous ambition or out of sheer arrogance it is unclear as to whyhe was at odds with the bishop of Alexandria Peter later deposed Melitius andwhen this issue was brought before the Council at Nicaea a compromise that included restricting the rights of Melitius while also not deposing the bishops who he ordained seemed to set down some canonical principles for jurisdictional authority however the schism of Melitius continued even afterthe Council of Nicaea as it gained support from the Arian heresy and was not defeated until the end of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century

Mercado 7

authority6 In this case Alexandria was given authority over

Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It is also interesting that within

the canon it states ldquoLet the ancient customshellipprevailrdquo This is important

as well since it lays down the historical and tradition precedent

describing that this is the way in which these areas were being

operated at this time Thus even though the bishop of Alexandria

at this time was just a Metropolitan (and later officially became

a Patriarch) it shows that there are some sees which have an

authority over other metropolises7 Thus we see that certain

bishops are given additional authority not only over the local

Churches they serve but over a larger geographical area that

includes other bishops as well

In light of this we can begin to apply these findings to

give us a clearer understanding of our own ecclesiology This

canon establishes the right for Constantinople to have

jurisdiction over its own areas and it also shows us that

Constantinople as a see that has certain authority has an

elevated status to begin with (that of Patriarchate) Though at

the time Constantinople had no such standing and the status was

6 Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils vol I pg 397 7 Ibid pg 392

Mercado 8

that of Rome Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem the city of

Constantinople was making a name for itself both as a seat of

political power and for ecclesiastical jurisdiction Having now

established that certain sees have authority in their own areas

and that a primacy is present in the person of the Patriarch of

Rome8 we can move on to the next set of canons which help to

define Constantinoplersquos role even further

Canon 3 of Constantinople I

The text in canon 3 of Constantinople I reads thusly

ldquoΤὸν μέν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆςτιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμηνrdquo9

ldquoThe Bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative ofhonor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Romerdquo10

In this canon we see that Constantinople is granted the

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo or the ldquoprerogative of honorrdquo or as it is

translated here after the bishop of Rome since Constantinople is

considered to be the ldquoNew Romerdquo It might be prudent however to

8 As we have seen previously laid out by canon 6 of Nicaea I 9 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173 10 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 5

bishop in Egypt at the beginning of the 4th century During his

tenure there had been many persecutions under the emperor

Diocletian which had produced a tremendous amount of martyrs but

also as in any other persecution there were those who were

threatened with martyrdom and retracted their faith Melitius

said that those who retraced their faith in the midst of these

persecutions must not be easily readmitted to the Christian

faith4

The bishop of Alexandria Peter who was well respected

suggested that these people be readmitted to the Church in an

easier manner than that which was suggested by Melitius In time

Melitius became more daring insofar as he started to ordain

bishops that were not in his canonical jurisdiction and he made a

schism in the Church whereby he and his believers held the

position that those who abandoned their faith in persecutions

were not to be readmitted to the faith in any imminent way This

position actually gained some traction as Meletius had about

twenty-nine other bishops support himmdashsome of whom he himself

ordained When Peter tried to use his authority and position as

4 Schaff Philip ldquoHistory of the Christian Churchrdquo pg 114

Mercado 6

bishop of Alexandria in an attempt to have Melitius fall into

line with the rest of the Christian Church Melitius resisted and

it became an issue which would eventually be discussed and

decided at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 but not

totally defeated until a later time5

Though seemingly displaced from the importance of the issue

at hand we come to realize that this canon is of importance

since it as we have seen previously provides principles by

which we are to understand the authority of certain bishops In

the canon we see that the bishop of Alexandria has authority

over other bishops within a certain region and the canon even

makes a correlation to that of the see of Rome This is important

because it helps us to understand that this is by no means an

isolated event but rather it shows that the Fathers had a notion

that certain cities have bishops who have a greater amount of

5 Though some say that Melitius started his polemic with Peter of Alexandria out of overzealous ambition or out of sheer arrogance it is unclear as to whyhe was at odds with the bishop of Alexandria Peter later deposed Melitius andwhen this issue was brought before the Council at Nicaea a compromise that included restricting the rights of Melitius while also not deposing the bishops who he ordained seemed to set down some canonical principles for jurisdictional authority however the schism of Melitius continued even afterthe Council of Nicaea as it gained support from the Arian heresy and was not defeated until the end of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century

Mercado 7

authority6 In this case Alexandria was given authority over

Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It is also interesting that within

the canon it states ldquoLet the ancient customshellipprevailrdquo This is important

as well since it lays down the historical and tradition precedent

describing that this is the way in which these areas were being

operated at this time Thus even though the bishop of Alexandria

at this time was just a Metropolitan (and later officially became

a Patriarch) it shows that there are some sees which have an

authority over other metropolises7 Thus we see that certain

bishops are given additional authority not only over the local

Churches they serve but over a larger geographical area that

includes other bishops as well

In light of this we can begin to apply these findings to

give us a clearer understanding of our own ecclesiology This

canon establishes the right for Constantinople to have

jurisdiction over its own areas and it also shows us that

Constantinople as a see that has certain authority has an

elevated status to begin with (that of Patriarchate) Though at

the time Constantinople had no such standing and the status was

6 Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils vol I pg 397 7 Ibid pg 392

Mercado 8

that of Rome Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem the city of

Constantinople was making a name for itself both as a seat of

political power and for ecclesiastical jurisdiction Having now

established that certain sees have authority in their own areas

and that a primacy is present in the person of the Patriarch of

Rome8 we can move on to the next set of canons which help to

define Constantinoplersquos role even further

Canon 3 of Constantinople I

The text in canon 3 of Constantinople I reads thusly

ldquoΤὸν μέν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆςτιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμηνrdquo9

ldquoThe Bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative ofhonor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Romerdquo10

In this canon we see that Constantinople is granted the

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo or the ldquoprerogative of honorrdquo or as it is

translated here after the bishop of Rome since Constantinople is

considered to be the ldquoNew Romerdquo It might be prudent however to

8 As we have seen previously laid out by canon 6 of Nicaea I 9 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173 10 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 6

bishop of Alexandria in an attempt to have Melitius fall into

line with the rest of the Christian Church Melitius resisted and

it became an issue which would eventually be discussed and

decided at the Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 but not

totally defeated until a later time5

Though seemingly displaced from the importance of the issue

at hand we come to realize that this canon is of importance

since it as we have seen previously provides principles by

which we are to understand the authority of certain bishops In

the canon we see that the bishop of Alexandria has authority

over other bishops within a certain region and the canon even

makes a correlation to that of the see of Rome This is important

because it helps us to understand that this is by no means an

isolated event but rather it shows that the Fathers had a notion

that certain cities have bishops who have a greater amount of

5 Though some say that Melitius started his polemic with Peter of Alexandria out of overzealous ambition or out of sheer arrogance it is unclear as to whyhe was at odds with the bishop of Alexandria Peter later deposed Melitius andwhen this issue was brought before the Council at Nicaea a compromise that included restricting the rights of Melitius while also not deposing the bishops who he ordained seemed to set down some canonical principles for jurisdictional authority however the schism of Melitius continued even afterthe Council of Nicaea as it gained support from the Arian heresy and was not defeated until the end of the 4th century or the beginning of the 5th century

Mercado 7

authority6 In this case Alexandria was given authority over

Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It is also interesting that within

the canon it states ldquoLet the ancient customshellipprevailrdquo This is important

as well since it lays down the historical and tradition precedent

describing that this is the way in which these areas were being

operated at this time Thus even though the bishop of Alexandria

at this time was just a Metropolitan (and later officially became

a Patriarch) it shows that there are some sees which have an

authority over other metropolises7 Thus we see that certain

bishops are given additional authority not only over the local

Churches they serve but over a larger geographical area that

includes other bishops as well

In light of this we can begin to apply these findings to

give us a clearer understanding of our own ecclesiology This

canon establishes the right for Constantinople to have

jurisdiction over its own areas and it also shows us that

Constantinople as a see that has certain authority has an

elevated status to begin with (that of Patriarchate) Though at

the time Constantinople had no such standing and the status was

6 Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils vol I pg 397 7 Ibid pg 392

Mercado 8

that of Rome Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem the city of

Constantinople was making a name for itself both as a seat of

political power and for ecclesiastical jurisdiction Having now

established that certain sees have authority in their own areas

and that a primacy is present in the person of the Patriarch of

Rome8 we can move on to the next set of canons which help to

define Constantinoplersquos role even further

Canon 3 of Constantinople I

The text in canon 3 of Constantinople I reads thusly

ldquoΤὸν μέν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆςτιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμηνrdquo9

ldquoThe Bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative ofhonor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Romerdquo10

In this canon we see that Constantinople is granted the

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo or the ldquoprerogative of honorrdquo or as it is

translated here after the bishop of Rome since Constantinople is

considered to be the ldquoNew Romerdquo It might be prudent however to

8 As we have seen previously laid out by canon 6 of Nicaea I 9 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173 10 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 7

authority6 In this case Alexandria was given authority over

Egypt Libya and Pentapolis It is also interesting that within

the canon it states ldquoLet the ancient customshellipprevailrdquo This is important

as well since it lays down the historical and tradition precedent

describing that this is the way in which these areas were being

operated at this time Thus even though the bishop of Alexandria

at this time was just a Metropolitan (and later officially became

a Patriarch) it shows that there are some sees which have an

authority over other metropolises7 Thus we see that certain

bishops are given additional authority not only over the local

Churches they serve but over a larger geographical area that

includes other bishops as well

In light of this we can begin to apply these findings to

give us a clearer understanding of our own ecclesiology This

canon establishes the right for Constantinople to have

jurisdiction over its own areas and it also shows us that

Constantinople as a see that has certain authority has an

elevated status to begin with (that of Patriarchate) Though at

the time Constantinople had no such standing and the status was

6 Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils vol I pg 397 7 Ibid pg 392

Mercado 8

that of Rome Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem the city of

Constantinople was making a name for itself both as a seat of

political power and for ecclesiastical jurisdiction Having now

established that certain sees have authority in their own areas

and that a primacy is present in the person of the Patriarch of

Rome8 we can move on to the next set of canons which help to

define Constantinoplersquos role even further

Canon 3 of Constantinople I

The text in canon 3 of Constantinople I reads thusly

ldquoΤὸν μέν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆςτιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμηνrdquo9

ldquoThe Bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative ofhonor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Romerdquo10

In this canon we see that Constantinople is granted the

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo or the ldquoprerogative of honorrdquo or as it is

translated here after the bishop of Rome since Constantinople is

considered to be the ldquoNew Romerdquo It might be prudent however to

8 As we have seen previously laid out by canon 6 of Nicaea I 9 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173 10 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 8

that of Rome Alexandria Antioch and Jerusalem the city of

Constantinople was making a name for itself both as a seat of

political power and for ecclesiastical jurisdiction Having now

established that certain sees have authority in their own areas

and that a primacy is present in the person of the Patriarch of

Rome8 we can move on to the next set of canons which help to

define Constantinoplersquos role even further

Canon 3 of Constantinople I

The text in canon 3 of Constantinople I reads thusly

ldquoΤὸν μέν τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆςτιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμηνrdquo9

ldquoThe Bishop of Constantinople however shall have the prerogative ofhonor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Romerdquo10

In this canon we see that Constantinople is granted the

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo or the ldquoprerogative of honorrdquo or as it is

translated here after the bishop of Rome since Constantinople is

considered to be the ldquoNew Romerdquo It might be prudent however to

8 As we have seen previously laid out by canon 6 of Nicaea I 9 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173 10 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 9

acknowledge the possibility that this is a misinterpretation

insofar as it is not so much ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo as much as it is

the ldquohonor of primacyrdquo It has been suggested that because the

primus exercises a level of authority and duties in his

responsibilities as primus then it must be acknowledged that he

does not hold a merely honorific title but he has certain

responsibilities that are not otherwise vested with other

Patriarchs11 This reality in and of itself constitutes a

separation in responsibilities which allows us to say that the

term primacy for Orthodox Christians means more than just a

title but denotes prerogatives and authority as well As we see

in the canon previously mentioned Constantinople is given such

an honor mainly because of the political situation of that

period By this point there are two emperors in the empire one

of the West and one of the East Thus an ecclesiastical

reflection of the importance of the cities in the empire seems to

be a reasonable assumption This canon simply shows us the

direction in which Constantinople was moving as it attained even

greater political power within the empire and ecclesiastical

11 Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Churchrdquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) 529ndash53

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 10

influence It is helpful to note that since canon 6 of the First

Ecumenical Council had given prerogatives to certain cities due

to political and regional influence it only makes sense that

Constantinople would be counted among those that have the ability

to exercise a level of authority over the other metropolitans in

its jurisdiction Another argument can be however that in

bringing Constantinople to this level of importance it could also

be breaking with the same canon of the First Ecumenical Council

as it had been stated previously ldquoLet the ancient customs prevailrdquo12

This however would seem to be a stretch since what was being

referred to as the ancient custom was more so the jurisdiction of

Alexandria rather than the order by which the ecclesiastical sees

were ranked as Hefele implies13

Within this canon we also see another peculiarity which

forces us to look further into the text itself The ever eminent

canonical commentator John Zonaras points out that there are

some who like to say the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is a reference to

time rather than rank Though he does not prescribe to this view

12 The First Ecumenical Council The Council of Nicaea I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 1513 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178-179

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 11

he makes mention of it since it poses a huge issue to our

ecclesiology for those who understand it as such Additionally

it seems inconceivable that the Holy Fathers would make such a

drastic change in a matter of sixty years since the previous

council so as to equate Rome and Constantinople The growing

amount of evidence that this theory is wrong is further supported

by the fact that other canons elaborate on the ranking of

Constantinople as it becomes equal in honor to that of Rome by

the Fourth Ecumenical Council14 Additionally it is clear that

Zonaras understands the practical importance of this notion of

ldquoμετάrdquo as well as the ecclesiological importance of it as being a

matter of subjection instead of a matter of time This is

evidenced by him stating ldquoAnd otherwise it would be impossible to guard this

equality of honor in each see For in reciting their names or assigning them seats when

they are to sit together or arranging the order of their signatures to documents one

must come before the otherrdquo15 Zonaras finally gives a strong admonition

to those who see the ldquoμετάrdquo in terms of time rather than that of

subjection when he says ldquoWhoever therefore shall explain this particle lsquoμετάrsquo

14 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174 15 The Second Ecumenical Council The Council of Constantinople I Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 178

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 12

as only referring to time and does not admit that it signifies an inferior grade of

dignity does violence to the passage and draws from it a meaning neither true nor

goodrdquo16

In one of Justinianrsquos novels there is a stark statement as

to how the see of Rome is understood by the eastern part of the

empire and for all intents and purposes the Eastern Church The

statement reads thusly ldquohellipwe decree that the most holy Pope of Old Rome

according to the decrees of the Holy Synods is the first of all priests and that the most

blessed bishop of Constantinople and New Rome should have the second place after

the Apostolic Throne of the Elder Rome and should be superior in honor to all othersrdquo17

This certainly shows us what Zonaras purposes inasmuch as he

thinks the ldquoμετάrdquo in this canon is in reference to the status of

Constantinople in that it is certainly second to that of Rome and

by no means is it equal to Rome by this time18 however future

canons will augment the status of Constantinople

Another astounding novel of Justinianrsquos he orders that all

canons published or ratified by the 4th Ecumenical Council were

to have universal validity Additionally all dogmas would have

16 Ibid 17 Justinian Novel 130 book V of the Imperial Constitutions title III 18 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 13

the same validity as the Holy Scriptures and all the canons were

to have the same validity as laws of the State Finally he

declared that any State law which conflicted with a canon would

be invalid19 There was an instance when Emperor Alexios Komnenos

issued two laws that seemed to be in conflict with the canons

Balsamon appropriately responds to the question of which should

have precedence the laws of the State or the canons when he

says ldquohellipcanons have greater validity than laws For the canons having been

promulgated and supported by emperors and Holy Fathers are accepted as the Holy

Scriptures while the laws have been introduced or composed only by emperors and for

this reason do not outweigh either the Holy Scriptures or the canonsrdquo20

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

Canon 28 of Chalcedon and canon 34 of the Holy Apostles read

thusly respectively

ldquoΠανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι καὶ τὸν ἀρτίωςἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατων ἐπισκόπων τῶνσυναχθέντων ἐπὶ τοῦ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς μνήμης Μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου τοῦ γενομένουβασιλέως ἐν τῇ βασιλίδι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέᾳ Ῥώμῃ γνωρίζοντες τὰ αὐτὰκαὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομέν τε καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ῥώμης καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆςπρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ Πατέρες εἰκότως

19 Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law pg 6820 Nomocanon in Fourteen Titles Title I Chapter 3

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 14

ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα Καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῶ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκονταθεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς Νέας Ῥώμηςἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσανπόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι δευτέραν μετ᾿ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν Καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆςΘρακικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖςἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦπροειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτηςἐκκλησίας δηλαδή ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰτῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπουςκαθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται χειροτονεῖσθαι δέ καθὼς εἴρηται τοὺςμητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεωςἀρχιεπισκόπου ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γινομένων καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸνἀναφερομένωνrdquo21

ldquoEverywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers and aware ofthe recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius theGreat of pious memory who became emperor in the imperial city ofConstantinople otherwise known as New Rome we too decree and votethe same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the mostholy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome And this is inkeeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted thepriorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being theimperial capital And motivated by the same object and aim the onehundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the likepriorities to the most holy throne of New Rome with god reasondeeming that the city which is the seat of an empire and of a senateand is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges andpriorities should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiasticalaffairs as coming next after her or as being second to her And it isarranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic Asian andThracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of themost holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid and likewise the Bishopsof the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands that isto say that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with

21 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 280-281

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 15

the Bishops of the province shall ordain the Bishops of the provincejust as is prescribed try the divine Canons But the Metropolitans of theaforesaid dioceses as has been said are to be ordained by theArchbishop of Constantinople after the elections have first beenconducted in accordance with custom and have been reported tohimrdquo22

And

ldquoΤοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρή τὸν ἐν αὐτοῖς πρῶτονκαὶ ἠγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεφαλήν καὶ μηδὲν τι πράττειν ἄνευ τῆς ἐκείνουγνώμηςmiddot ἐκεῖνα δὲ μόνα πράττειν ἕκαοτον ὅσα τῇ αὐτοῦ παροικίᾳἐπιβάλλει καὶ ταῖς ὑπ αὐτὴν χώραις Ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ἐκεῖνος ἄνευ τῆς πάντωνγνώμης ποιείτω τι Οὕτω γὰρ ὁμόνοια ἔσται καὶ δοξασθήσεται ὁ θεός διὰΚυρίου ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματιmiddot ὁ Πατήρ καὶ ὁ Υἱός καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμαrdquo23

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first amongthem and account him as their head and do nothing of consequencewithout his consent but each may do those things only which concern hisown parish and the country places which belong to it But neither let him(who is the first) do anything without the consent of all for so there will beunanimity and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spiritrdquo24

In these two canons we are given a look into just how

important Constantinople was to the empire politically Whereas

historical and political realities are reflected within our

canonical tradition we must also be cognizant of the canonical

dimensions that must invariably be reflective of our theology and

tradition We see in canon 28 of Chalcedon that Constantinople22 The Rudder pg 271-272 23 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-17424 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg596

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 16

had been granted equal status of honor as that of Old Rome since

Constantinople is understood as the New Rome This brings to mind

a minor but meaningful point insofar as today we hear much in

reference to ldquoSecond Romerdquo and even more surprisingly ldquoThird

Romerdquo In truth there really is no basis for this numerical

approach since in our canonical tradition we only hear of ldquoOld

Romerdquo and ldquoNew Romerdquo Not only do we see these terms used in our

canonical tradition but we also see them used in writings by

interpreters of the canons such as Aristenus Balsamon and

Zonaras25 This point is important not so much in what is said

but rather in what is left unsaid There is a deliberate action

in calling Constantinople ldquoNew Romerdquo but it is even more telling

that it was not referred to as ldquoSecond Romerdquo as some would try to

designate it today By limiting the potentiality of numbers of

Rome to two with the words ldquoOldrdquo and ldquoNewrdquo there seems to be a

finality whereas a numerical approach could potentially lead to a

limitless list This not only points to the unmistakable stature

of Constantinople but it also shows how the Holy Fathers of this

council were guided by the Holy Spirit

25The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 287

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 17

To better understand why Constantinople was given this

position as second only after Rome in the pentarchy we must look

at the political landscape and the varying factors that led to

such prominence This can primarily be seen in the commentaries

of canon 28 where we see Zonaras mention that the political

landscape of Constantinople had a tremendous effect on how the

city was seen in ecclesiastical eyes He says at one point in

regards to canon 3 of Constantinople I and its relation to

Chalcedon

ldquoFor the enjoyment of equal privileges on account of the emperorand the senate is discussed even if the former has been changed into amonarchy and the latter has been closed and abandoned When thoseHoly Fathers stated that since this city was honored by the emperor andthe senate as in the case of Old Rome it was necessary for her to alsohave ecclesiastical privileges as that one to be honored above all otherhonored churches but existing second after that onerdquo26

Here we see Zonarasrsquo reasoning inasmuch as Constantinople is

the political seat of the Eastern Roman Empire and since it is

honored with the presence of an emperor and senate then it

should have accorded to it such an honor as Rome since it too has

26 Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study pg 84 In this sectionwe see a quote by John Zonaras which exemplifies his understanding of canon 28of Chalcedon in relation to the reasoning for Constantinoplersquos elevation in honor

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 18

an emperor and a senate One must also consider that not only has

Constantinople seen itself elevated politically but even

ecclesiastically by this point All of the Ecumenical Councils by

this point including the current one in which we find this

canon have taken place in the eastern part of the Empire under

the ecclesiastical auspices of Constantinople Nicaea

Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon are all under the

ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople so one may ask

why not acknowledge this tremendous significance of both civil

and ecclesiastical power with an elevated honor

Now that we know why Constantinople was accorded such an

honor we must delve into the meaning of this new relationship

between Rome and Constantinople One would be misled to think

that this new status for Constantinople would constitute it being

equal in all things to Rome This notion is not just abnormal

among our Orthodox ethos but it is entirely separate from our

ecclesiology It would be inconceivable that there could be two

people those being the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople

respectively could share a primacy This notion at the very

least would be theologically incorrect Additionally it defies

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 19

practical logistics which would have most certainly been

considered We see this in Zonarasrsquo statement concerning both

canon 3 of Constantinople I and canon 28 of Chalcedon ldquohellipit would

otherwise be impossible for the equivalency of honor to be preserved in both thrones

For it is necessary in the commemoration of names of their presidents for one to be

first and the other to be second also in chairs when they might arrive and in

signatures when it is required of themrdquo27 Though Constantinople had become

more influential and wealthy it did not mean that they would

share an equal status with Rome much less outrank it

Furthermore it was well understood by the Holy Fathers at

this council that Constantinople could not have equality in every

respect to Rome All of this is of extreme importance since when

the primus Rome fell out of communion with the rest of the Body

of Christ during the Great Schism she lost the ability in the

eyes of the Christian East to hold the rank of as Justinian had

put it ldquofirst of all priestsrdquo Due to Rome separating herself from the

rest of the Church it puts the rest of the Church in a position

where there is no primus Since this situation necessitated a

primus and since Constantinople was by this point ranked second

27 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 173-174

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 20

having equal honor to Rome it took the helm as the primus It is

interesting to note that Rome only lost its title as primus due

to the fact that it fell out of communion with the rest of the

Christian world Even when Rome had lost all of its political

power and much of its influence it still retained the right to

be called primus due to its history tradition spiritual status

and because it was still the seat of the political and

ecclesiastical empire even after the fall of the city This shows

us that so too can Constantinople keep her title as primus

despite a decline in political power in later centuries Having

now seen how canon 28 of Chalcedon has influenced our

understanding of primacy within the Orthodox context let us now

look to another canon which further explains our concept of

primacy We will now be looking at canon 34 of the Holy Apostles

The canons of the Holy Apostles were most likely written

sometime between the middle of the third century and the middle

of the fourth century with no reason to believe that they were

written any time after that28 With this in mind it certainly

lends credibility that these canons though they were not written

28 The Apostolic Canons The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg591

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 21

by the apostles themselves have an ethos wherein they were

written with good intention and as a record of canonical actions

The beginning of the canon seems to have the greatest amount on

information concerning how we understand primacy when it says

ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and

account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without his consentrdquo29 In

addition to the fact that the canon is clear on the role of he

who is the primus all three commentators of the holy canons

reiterate the importance of this canon with Alexios Aristenus

saying emphatically ldquoΔίχα τοῦ πρώτου αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν οὐδὲν οἱ ἐπίσκοποι

εἰμὴ τὰ τῆς παροικίας αὐτοῦ ἔκαστος καὶ ὁ πρῶτος ἄτερ ἐκείνων οὐδὲν διὰ τὴν

ὀφειλομένην ὁμόνοιανrdquo30 Here we not only see how the primus is the

head of the group apart from whom can none of the bishops do

anything of significance but also that the primus must have the

approval of the other bishops as well This seems to be in accord

with canon 28 of Chalcedon Furthermore it is noteworthy to

mention that the primus needs the consent of the other bishops in

29 Ibid pg 596 30Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 47 The translation of the quote from Aristenus roughly translates to ldquoWithout the first the bishops do nothing except the things of each of their parishes and the first apart from them nothing on account of advancing harmonyrdquo

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 22

order to do certain things This can be seen in the actual

functioning of the Ecumenical Patriarchate when major decisions

must be done with the consent and signatures of the other

hierarchs in the Holy Synod

The other commentators of the holy canons also offer up

thoughts concerning this canon which sheds light on the issue of

primacy Zonaras says ldquoJust as bodies move improperly and are completely

useless unless the head keeps its own operation sound so also the body of the Church

will move irregularly and improperly unless the one who presides over it and fulfills the

rank of the head would be maintained in his own dignityrdquo31 So too does Balsamon

mention ldquoNot only do all things in heaven possess a ranking but also those on

earthrdquo32 Here we have a staunch position by all of the commentators

in which they recognize the necessity of a primus and that the

primus has tremendous responsibility in that he must act as the

ecclesiastical mechanism by which the Church can function

together however they also realize that he does not have

authority over others but rather that his role is that of

unifier in an effort to promote harmony33 31 Viscuso Patrick ldquoOrthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Studyrdquo pg 16832 Γ Ράλλης και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Τομ Β σελ 46 33 This notion by Aristenus that the primusrsquo main responsibility is to promoteharmony is reverberated in his writings several times It shows us his focus on the necessity of the primus to not only be the impetus behind Christian

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 23

It might also be noteworthy to mention the arguments that

some within Orthodox circles make concerning the issue of primacy

and how as it is apparent to them Orthodoxy does not experience

a primacy but we are governed through Ecumenical Councils In

truth even within these councils there was a primus in the

ecclesiastical sense insofar as there was a president of the

council who was bishop One might even ask is not this person

unequal in his status as president of the council since he solely

holds primacy It seems that he is equal in status in his

sacramental duties to all other bishops but administratively as

we see with canon 34 of the Holy Apostles he has a different

prerogative that enables him to be considered the primus34

Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo)

Having now laid most of the groundwork in considering the

various canons and their relationship to the issue of primacy we

will briefly look at canon 36 of the Council of Trullo which

renews the enactments of the Council of Chalcedon concerning the

unity through the other bishops in their cooperation with the primus but to also promote this unity through the primusrsquo ability and responsibility to makedecisions with the consent of the other bishops 34 Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology pg 233

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 24

equivalence of between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople

This is important to the issue at hand for a variety of reasons

Primarily this canon reaffirms canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical

Council even though there was initial hesitation from the West in

its acceptance Secondly the council in Trullo had diverse

representation (including representatives from Rome) just as the

4th Ecumenical Council did with 630 bishops participating in the

former and 650 bishops participating in the latter Additionally

Papal legates reviewed and initially approved canon 36 stating

that all of the canons from the 4th Ecumenical Council even the

contentious canon 28 were accepted35 This is all the more

significant since after the council in Chalcedon the Pope of

Rome did not accept canon 28 Finally this affirmation of canon

35 Though the canons of the 4th Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon were not initially accepted by the West especially that of canon 28 the Quinisext Council also known as the Penthekte Council was accepted by the West and thatincluded all of the canons from the Council of Chalcedon including canon 28 Thus in accepting the results of the Penthekte Council the Papal legates also accepted the fruit of the 4th Ecumenical Council It must be stated however that not all of these were put into practice as we see with canons 13and 55 of the Penthekte Council This seems to suggest that even though the representatives of the Pope had accepted the validity of these specific canons they accepted them as being a more localized phenomenon since these two canons specifically dealt with fasting on Saturdays and the marital statusof deacons and priests As for canon 28 however due to its expressed relationship between the thrones of Rome and Constantinople it is inconceivable that it would have been overlooked as a mere local phenomenon and thus suggests that it had a more ecumenically accepted understanding

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 25

28 was reaffirmed at the 7th Ecumenical Council when the canons

of Trullo were confirmed and the delegates from Rome posed no

objection Pope Hadrian even wrote a letter to Patriarch Tarasios

in which he wrote that he recognized and accepted its canons

With the acceptance of all the canons including canon 28 the

result was that of approval of the previous canons with greater

synodality within the Christian Church It was only when greater

strain was put on the relationship between the thrones of Rome

and Constantinople in subsequent centuries that canon 28 came

into question in the West once again which seems more to have

been an issue of acrimony pervading in the then politically

charged environment

These facts help to show that canon 28 of Chalcedon is not

merely a canon that was conceived at one point in time but it

was renewed at a later time on multiple occasions This canon

helps to solidify Constantinople as the first rank after that of

Rome In addition to this it has equal honor to that of Rome

which sets the stage for the schism in 1054 With the split in

1054 comes the augmentation in primacy where Rome no longer

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 26

holds that standing as primus36 at least according to the

Eastern Church and that Constantinople takes the reigns as primus

as the canonical tradition has placed it accordingly in that

rank

Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon

Within the course of this discussion concerning the canons

in relation to primacy we have but one more grouping of canons

to discuss that do not have so much to do with primacy as much as

they have to do with prerogatives of Constantinople to be more

specific the right to hear and decide cases of appeal

(ἔκκλητον) In the canonical tradition of the Church the

Patriarchate of Constantinople has been granted certain

prerogatives that lend greater understanding to its role within

the Orthodox oekoumene especially that as primus after the

falling away of the previous primus Rome Though these

prerogatives have always been granted to the see of

36 Dual excommunications caused the Church to split between the Western Churchand the Eastern Church With only one of the pentarchy splitting from the rest the other four needed a primus and Constantinople was the prime choice since it not only made sense in a practical way politically but the canonicaltradition had already deemed it as second in rank after that of Rome which hadfallen away in the schism

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 27

Constantinople and therefore predate the events of the schism

it gives us a better notion as to how important the see of

Constantinople truly is in light of these canons with the others

we have one through already

Both canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon deal with

similar issues in their own way concerning the recourse of

persons should they feel that they are in contention with their

metropolitan As it stands in these cases if someone has an

issue with their metropolitan then it says as is the case for

canon 9 ldquohelliphe shall not forsake his bishop and run to the secular courtsrdquo37 and in

the case of canon 17 it says ldquohellipit is lawful for those who hold themselves

aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the provincerdquo38 Furthermore in

both cases the synod to which the individuals or synods must

turn to should they not be able to reach an amicable agreement

amongst the parties is that of Constantinople It is clear that

it is the prerogative of Constantinople to not only hear but

also to adjudicate and decide these cases as a matter of

preserving and promoting Christian unity This prerogative also

37The Fourth Ecumenical Council The Council of Chalcedon The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II pg 27438 Ibid pg 280

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 28

shows that Constantinople is held in high regard if it is

permitted to be the arbiter of cases brought before it It is

very important to mention however that whereas the canons state

that Constantinople can be the arbiter to hear and decide these

cases Constantinople cannot interfere on its own accord with

issues affecting other autocephalous Churches but can offer

guidance to the parties involved In regards to these two canons

however they lay the foundation for Constantinople to

essentially be the last resort of an appeal If there is an issue

between two other autocephalous Churches and one of them desires

to appeal the issue at hand to the throne of Constantinople then

Constantinople has the right to decide the issue as the final

recourse for such appeals This increased privilege helps to

further solidify Constantinoplersquos lasting role in the

ecclesiastical life of the Church as arbiter and decision maker

which ultimately leads us to understand Constantinople as the

primus in Orthodoxy

The ldquoOnerdquo and the ldquoManyrdquo

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 29

It can be stated unequivocally that when we explore the

nature of primacy we also must take a deeper look into the

nature of the episcopacy in terms of the person of the bishop

The person of the bishop is at the same time the ldquoonerdquo and the

ldquomanyrdquo It is inconceivable to imagine an ecclesiology whereby we

can have one without the other or that one is greater than the

other On the one hand the concept of the one being greater than

the many can be seen clearly in the Roman Catholic understanding

of primacy in which the local Church only exists because it is a

piece of the one universal Church39 and thus is an effect of

the universal Church On the other hand the concept of the many

being greater than the one can be seen in the theology of certain

individuals such as Nicholas Afanasiev and John Meyendorff who

say the Church is primarily local and this constitutes the

universal Church Instead we must see the Church as being both

local and universal with neither aspect taking precedence over

the other nor either one being a prerequisite for the existence

of the other but being ecclesiologically simultaneous40 We see39 However this view implies that the local Eucharistic assembly is not the complete Body of Christ and thus also denies either consciously or subconsciously that the same local Eucharistic assembly is not a complete or accurate image of the Kingdom 40 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 7

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 30

this on a couple of levels at both the local level and the

universal level of our ecclesiology when we consider the person

of the bishop within his own Metropolis and the person of the

bishop as the primus on a larger scale For the time being

however we will focus on the bishop as he relates to his own see

before we speak of the bishop as primus of a region

The unity of the Church is essential to understanding our

ecclesiological communion Each local church is a complete image

of the Kingdom with the bishop as the presider (as Christ will be

in the Heavenly liturgy) the presbyters surrounding him the

deacons announcing the proclamations to the people of God and

the people of God participating in this divine experience It is

thus inconceivable as mentioned previously that he who is first

(the bishop) be without the many (the people of God) as it would

destroy our ecclesiological understanding of the Eucharistic

communion On the other hand neither can we imagine the many

without the first as it would be equally as detrimental Instead

we must have both the one and the many together in order for this

Eucharistic communion to be a true image of the Kingdom

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 31

With the natural progression of the faith in terms of the

number of churches and the inability to have the bishop

physically present in all of these places it became necessary

that one would preside in the bishoprsquos stead It is of course

entirely necessary however that this individual has the

explicit permission to act on the local bishoprsquos behalf and

thereby fulfill the duty of presiding with the Eucharistic

Synaxis This role was filled by the presbyter who though he has

the permission to fulfill this duty expresses this permission

that was given to him in several ways amongst which in modern

times includes bowing at the Service of Kairos towards the throne

of Christ (the bishoprsquos throne) the commemoration of the

bishoprsquos name and the veneration of the signature of the bishop

on the antimension during the Divine Liturgy41 This is all done

to ensure the strict understanding that this permission is given

by one and one person only- the local bishop Thus even with

presbyters serving in the place of the bishop the41 These are common observations from the divine services that help to show the relationship between the presbyters and the bishop Furthermore we can see that the scope of the presbyterrsquos ability to serve is limited to the permission granted by the bishop which is then expressed through the various actions previously mentioned by the presbyter as a sign that he has been granted this responsibility not of his own accord but that of the local bishop

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 32

ecclesiological understanding of the one that is the bishop is

retained

Though we may see how the notion of the one and the many

operates in the context of the local Church we must also

consider these implications on a larger level administratively-

the regional level As we have seen in canon 6 of the 1st

Ecumenical Council there are some sees which have an increased

authority and responsibility of promoting Christian unity It is

the Metropolitan in this area that is counted first among those

other bishops and presides ecclesiastically such as during a

meeting of a local synod Here again we see the importance of the

one and the many as we have witnessed with Canon 34 of the Holy

Apostles stating that the many (several bishops) should not do

anything without the consent of the one (the presiding bishop)

and the one should not do anything of consequence without

informing the many In this manner we see a balance between the

local and the greater Church working as one Body of Christ while

also preserving the integrity of the primus

Again this is experienced at the universal level much in

the same way as it is experienced at the regional level The one

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 33

(the primus of the universal Church) cannot be considered apart

from the many (the various Metropolitans and heads of other

Churches) and neither can the many be considered apart from the

one The primus in the universal Church today is that of the

Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople who after the falling

away of Rome presides as the first within Orthodoxy today This

is expressed in several ways such as during the liturgy when he

presides as first and when he presides synodally as first at any

meeting The primus holds this place both for very practical

reasons but also out of necessary theological reasons as ldquoThe

logic of synodality leads to primacy and the logic of the

Ecumenical Council leads to universal primacyrdquo42 His Eminence

Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes note that the

need for a primus at the local regional and universal levels is

not just useful but it is an ecclesiological necessity to have a

unified Church43 It is in the person of the bishop that we find

the very expression of unity and oneness in the Church and is the

main responsibility of the primus in Orthodoxy Additionally the

42 Zizioulas John D ldquoRecent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theologyrdquo ThePetrine MinistryCatholics and Orthodox in Dialogue pg 24243 Zizioulas John D Primacy in the Church pg 10

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 34

notion of the one and the many is not just an expression of

idealism but is found at the heart of our Trinitarian theology

with none other than the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Metropolitan John of Pergamon suggests that we have the one God

and the Trinitarian ldquomanyrdquo (in this case three persons) who are

in such perfect communion with one another that not only is the

operation of the Trinity perfect in every way but it provides us

the example par-excellence of the unity of faith to which we

should endeavor as the one Body of Christ44 It is in the Trinity

that we see what is often referred to as the ldquoΜοναρχία του

Πατρόςrdquo (the Monarchy of the Father) without the subservience of

either other person of the Trinity and yet complete communion as

one God with the Father as the cause It is to this which we

should strive as Orthodox Christians so that we may be in perfect

communion with each other as one complete Body of Christ

Recent Articles on the Source of Primacy

In recent times there has been a surge in interest

concerning primacy within our Orthodox world Much of this came

44 Ibid pg 6

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 35

about due to the ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the

Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo which was issue by

the synod of the Church of Russia December 26th 2013 A response

to this position was soon thereafter issued by Metropolitan

Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article entitled ldquoPrimus Sine

Paribusrdquo (Πρώτος Δίχως ΊσονldquoFirst Without Equalsrdquo) Between the

two of these statements there was much to consider in regards to

our understanding of primacy in Orthodoxy Whereas this portion

will not focus on as much as ldquowhordquo is the primus it will rather

focus on that which is the source of primacy and various other

questions that are asked and addressed between the two articles

First and foremost in the statement by the Church of

Russia concerning the source of primacy we seem to come upon a

three pronged differentiation in regards to the source of primacy

in their argument It pronounces clearly in their statement ldquoOn

the level of diocesehellipthe source of the bishoprsquos primacy in his diocese is the apostolic

succession handed down through episcopal ordinationrdquo45 It then says even

further down the article in reference to autocephalous churches

ldquohellipthe source of primacy on the level of the Autocephalous Church is the election of the

45ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 2

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 36

pre-eminent bishop by a Council (Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical

powerrdquo46 Finally it states ldquoOn the level of the Universal Church as a

community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common

confession of faith and living in a sacramental communion with one another primacy is

determined in conformity with the tradition of the sacred diptychs and represents

primacy in honorrdquo47 In response to this Metropolitan Elpidophoros

offers a good rebuttal to the notion that there are different

sources of primacy for each level of ecclesiastical governance

He further suggests that if the Church of Russia were right in

its thinking then not only would the sources of primacy not be

commensurate with the levels of ecclesiology but then the

sources of said primacy seem to derive from something external

from the primus himself48

The theological issue here with the argument from the Church

of Russia is that if the primus is independent of his primacy in

that he receives his primacy then that seems to support the

notion that the primacy always exists regardless of the primus

According to the Church of Russia that would then mean in the

46 Ibid pg 347 Ibid 48 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 2

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 37

case of a local bishop that primacy resides within the service of

ordination In the case of a regional bishop primacy lays within

a synod however there necessitates a primus even within the

synod In the case of the Universal Church a bishop derives his

primacy from the diptychs which as Metropolitan Elpidophoros

rightly points out is an expression of primacy not the source

itself49 Thus the source of primacy does not come from external

expressions of primacy or from ordination but rather the source

of primacy is the person in and of their own self as they are the

one who holds it within their person

Another point in which the Church of Russia seemed to falter

was their notion that there is no universal hierarch Whereas the

notion may seem correct at first and indeed there is not one

hierarch who has complete authority over the other hierarchs of

the same rank the Church of Russia makes the mistake of saying

ldquoThe canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the

bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the

church-wide scalerdquo50 This statement may seem to hold some weight in

49 Ibid pg 350 ldquoPosition of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Churchrdquo pg 4

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 38

what we have stated previously about the one who is granted the

title of primus however the notion that the primus is not

vested with any powers of a church-wide scale is false In truth

canon 34 of the Holy Apostles clearly states that not only is

there a head but that no other bishop can do anything of

consequence without the primusrsquo consent as we see in the canonrsquos

text to follow ldquoThe bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first

among them and account him as their head and do nothing of consequence without

his consentrdquo This surely does not amount to any type of interference

between the primus and the other PatriarchatesChurches but it

does mean that the primus must be actively engaged in Church-wide

matters while also seeking to preserve the unity of the Church

which could never be considered a local or even regional issue

but an ecumenical responsibility Additionally Metropolitan

Elpidophoros seems to make a stark point that sums up our

understanding of the role of our Orthodox primus the Ecumenical

Patriarch

ldquoIn the case of the Archbishop of Constantinople we observe the uniqueconcomitance of all three levels of primacy namely the local (asArchbishop of Constantinople-New Rome) the regional (as Patriarch) andthe universal or worldwide (as Ecumenical Patriarch) This threefold

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 39

primacy translates into specific privileges such as the right of appeal andthe right to grant or remove autocephalyhelliprdquo51

Conclusion

To conclude the topic of primacy can often be a complex one

due to the various sources from which we can draw information

such as canons and historical precedence We can at least arrive

at the conclusion that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

is indeed the primus of Orthodoxy and he holds certain

prerogatives that are not held by others thus making him unique

in his authority As primus he is also the one who presides

during liturgy even among the heads of the other autocephalous

churches sits at the head of the table is the president of

meetings and whose representative delegate has the right to

serve as the first He also holds the unique and all-important

privilege of being the arbiter and decision maker in disputes as

well as the sole authority in granting and rescinding

autocephaly Finally as primus the Ecumenical Patriarch of

Constantinople holds the prerogative that the ldquobarbarianrdquo areas

(such as North America South America Australia etc) are under

51 Lambriniadis Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa ldquoPrimus Sine Paribusrdquo pg 4

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 40

the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate instead of the

anomalies that we see existing today with multiple bishops having

overlapping geographical regions Such abnormalities pose

prolonged ecclesiological issues as well as a threat to worldwide

Orthodox unity

It is furthermore inconceivable that in our understanding

of the phrase ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo this can only mean a title

whereby it guarantees someone a ldquobetter seat at the tablerdquo with

no other additional prerogatives This would be a grave mistake

since this would seem to contradict all of the prerogatives

mentioned previously while ignoring the true role of the primus

throughout history A primacy that does not include additional

prerogatives is not a primacy at all and if there are some who

still contend that the primacy of Constantinople is merely

honorific then it seems they distort and degrade the greatest

primacy of all this is the Holy Trinity which we should try to

emulate in all facets of our ecclesiology In this way we come

to realize that we should not necessarily speak in terms of

ldquoprimacy of honorrdquo but the honor of primacy

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 41

These actions are not as some shallowly believe ldquoThe

Greeks taking overrdquo rather these actions are for the unity of

the Church and to ensure that we are conducting ourselves in a

canonically and ecclesiologically sound manner Under the

leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has special

prerogatives such as being charged with the responsibility of

Orthodox unity and being the spokesperson for Orthodox faithful

worldwide we should be focused on mending canonical

abnormalities and jurisdictional anomalies

Though it will be a contentious and difficult

process this must be done to ensure Orthodoxy for future

generations It is also important that once again all

autocephalous churches recognize Constantinople as the primus and

they should rally around the Ecumenical Patriarch since we are

one Body of Christ and as we see in the interpretation of Canon

34 by St Nikodemnos the Hagiorite since the Ecumenical

Patriarch as primus is the head of this body Through this common

support of our Orthodox primus we may proclaim the good news of

Christ while also acknowledging the canonical and traditional

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 42

order of the Orthodox Church which our Holy Fathers guided by

the Holy Spirit established through our canonical tradition

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 43

Bibliography

Cummings D Trans (1957) The Rudder Chicago Orthodox Christian

Educational Society

Daley Brian ldquoPosition and Patronage in the Early Church The Original Meaning of lsquoPrimacy of Honorrsquordquo Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993) pg529-553

Hefele Charles A History of the Christian Councils Vol 1

Lambriniadis Elpidophoros Primus Sine Paribus Constantinople 2014

Manoussakis John Panteleimon Primacy and Ecclesiology The State of the Question

Rodopoulos Panteleimon An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law RollinsfordOrthodox Research Institute 2007

Russian Orthodox Church Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Probelm of Primacy in the Universal Church Moscow 2014

Schaff Philip Ante-Nicene Christianity Vol 2 of History of the Christian Church

- - - comp The Seven Ecumenical Councils 4th ed Peabody Hendrickson 2004 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers vol XIV series II Ed Philip Schaff

Viscuso Patrick Orthodox Canon Law A Casebook for Study Brookline Holy Cross Orthodox Press 2006

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852

Mercado 44

Zizioulas Ioannis Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology In The Petrine Ministry Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue edited by Cardinal Walter Kasper Mahwah NJ The Newman Press 2006

Zizioulas John D ldquoPrimacy in the Churchrdquo Eastern Churches Journal 52 (Summer 1998)

Γ Ράλλη και Μ Ποτλής Σύνταγμα των Θείων και Ιερών Κανόνων Vol 2 Αθήνα 1852