The Dominical Tradition in connection with synodality and primacy concerns the proper method for collegial governance of the Church of Christ by the universal episcopate, emphasizing the cooperative nature of the protos and the synod as they exercise their shared responsibility in making decisions together for the good of the Church. That said, according to the Tradition of the first millennium, the authority of the protos, as first among equals, is exercised only within the synod, i.e., only with the cooperation of his brother bishops. Taking that truth into account, one must emphasize the fact that the protos of the synod does not have power over the other bishops; instead, he is said to be, as indicated above, the first among equals, and his authority is exercised legitimately only within the synod, and never outside of it or over it. To explain this doctrine more fully, synodality — properly understood — means that the protos (whether he be a pope or a patriarch) has no authority over the other self-governing local or regional Churches, because any concept of the supreme power of one bishop over another bishop, or of one Church over another Church, destroys the reality of communion, which is not about power over others, but which is instead about reciprocity and sharing in the common divine life of the body of Christ. In fact, in a Eucharistic ecclesiology, or what is also sometimes called an "ecclesiology of communion", it is not possible for one Church or one bishop to have power over another Church or bishop, because each and every local Church is the full realization of the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In other words, authority in the Church cannot be thought of as "power over others," but must be understood as "service to others." 

Since the Church Fathers saw each local Church as the whole Church it follows that the one and identical Catholic and Aposotolic Church was made manifest wherever the Eucharistic liturgy was celebrated; and as a result of this truth, each local bishop, as head of the Church of God in his care, fully manifests the whole authority of episcopacy within his eparchy, and as such he is the absolute sacramental authority of order within his local Church. Now, the fact that the bishop is "absolute" in his diocese excludes any concept of a "supreme power" over the local bishop (or the local Church). In other words, the Roman universalist ecclesiology of the pre-Vatican II era, which sees the local Church as a part or piece of the universal Church, and not as the full realization of the one and identical Church of Christ, is rejected as erroneous. The local bishop could not be absolute within his Church if there was a supreme power (episcopal or primatial) over him. Moreover, it is important to note that Fr. Schmemann denies that there is a unique charism of primacy, for as he puts it, there is "no sacramental order of primacy, [and] no charism of primacy exists"; instead there is only the sacramental order of episcopacy, and that is why the primate (local, regional, or universal) must be a "bishop of a local Church and not a 'bishop at large,' and his primacy belongs to him precisely because of his status in his own Church." [Fr. Schmemann, "The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church," page 50] This theological truth necessitates a rejection of the Roman theory — advocated at Vatican I — that declares that the Pope's power is "personal." Thus, as Fr. Schmemann points out, the mistake made by the Roman Church does not lie in its affirmation of the Bishop of Rome's universal primacy; "rather, the error lies in the identification of this primacy with 'supreme power' which transforms Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church herself." [Schmemann, page 48] Sadly the pre-Vatican II Roman ecclesiology, which is still reflected in the Roman Church's Code of Canon Law and in the Roman enforced Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, breaks the Church into pieces, which are then united through a juridical concept of hierarchical communion with the Pope, from whom all the other bishops in the Church receive the legal power to exercise the sacrament of orders that was bestowed upon them through the rite of episcopal consecration. To put it another way, the universalist ecclesiology of the Roman Church has broken the sacrament of orders itself into two parts:  the first part is the grace of orders, whereby a bishop is made a bishop, that is, a priest after the order of Melchizedek; and the second part is the legal power to exercise the gift of orders already received, which only becomes effective through the legal concept of hierarchical communion with, and subservience to, the Bishop of Rome. Now, as I am sure you are aware, this kind of division of the sacrament of orders (to episcopacy) is contrary to the belief of the early Church; and as such, it is not acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Ultimately, a patristic ecclesiology of communion does not allow one Church to have "power" over another. Thus, a patriarch from an autocephalous Church of a particular region and ritual tradition would be a servant of the other local Churches within that territory, and not some kind of secular prince ruling over the other local Churches and their bishops.

Taking into account what has been said above, it is clear that primacy must not be thought of in legal or jurisdictional terms, but must be seen in terms of service and love in support of communion. As Fr. Schmemann explains, "The essential corollary of this eucharistic ecclesiology is that it excludes the idea of a supreme power, understood as power over the local Church and her bishop," because as he goes on to say, "A supreme power would mean power over the Church, over the Body of Christ, over Christ Himself," and this is simply contrary to the Orthodox faith of the Church Fathers [John Meyendorff (Editor), The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church, pages 38-39]. Bearing in mind what has already been said, it is clear that the "sacred authority" of popes and patriarchs — which is founded upon the unity of the sacrament of orders — is one of service, and so it must not be thought of in monarchical, legalistic, or jurisdictional terms. Moreover, this "sacred authority" is held equally by all who possess the grace of sacramental ordination to the episcopate [see the Ravenna Document, no. 25; and the Chieti Document, no. 16].

Finally, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, following the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the pope has authority within his own patriarchal Church, but even within the Roman Church the pope himself is subject to Tradition, and so he cannot simply alter the liturgy or break with immemorial custom, nor can he change the moral doctrine of the Church, and there will continue to be liturgical and doctrinal upheavals within the Western Church until this truth is unequivocally reaffirmed. In fact, Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles expresses perfectly the reciprocity that should exist between the Churches in communion with each other, for as it explains:

Based upon the above quotation, which is taken from the Apostolic Constitutions, it is clear that reciprocity is essential to synodality. Clearly, the protos is not above the synod, nor can his authority be separated from the synod; in fact, the synod itself (i.e., all the bishops taken collectively including the protos) is the supreme authority in governing the Church. So based upon what has been said in this essay, it is clear that an orthodox Eucharistic ecclesiology is opposed to the "universalist" ecclesiology that developed in the Latin Church during the Scholastic period in the high middle ages. Nevertheless, a possible solution to the obstacles to ecumenism that presently exist between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches was proposed by Pope Benedict XVI in a book he published while he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and here is what he said:  

As great as the obstacles to rapprochement between East and West presented in this essay are, it is my hope that Pope Benedict's proposed solution can help to bring about healing between the two sides, and perhaps make the restoration of communion a reality at some point in the not too distant future.

Obstacles to Ecumenism:  Synodality and Primacy

by Steven Todd Kaster

Original Version:  8 December 2006 (from a thread at the Byzantine Forum)

This essay is based on posts taken from the forum thread linked above, but was reworked and expanded into its present form on:

6 April 2025

Copyright © 2006-2025 Steven Todd Kaster