http://www.cuvantul-ortodox.

ro/recomandari/patriarhia-moscovei-primatul-biserica/
1 august 2017

DOCUMENT OFICIAL. Pozitia Patriarhiei Moscovei pe tema PRIMATULUI in

BISERICA UNIVERSALA. Impotriva PAPISMULUI si a “ideilor strambe” cu privire la
INTAIETATE
Pozitia Patriarhiei Moscovei in problema primatului in Biserica Universala
Sursa Online: Mospat.Ru

Problema primatului in Biserica Universala a fost adesea ridicata in timpul

sedintelor Comisiei Internationale Comune a Dialogului Teologic dintre Biserica Ortodoxa
si Biserica Romano Catolica. Pe 27 martie, 2007, Sf. Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse a cerut
Comisiei Teologice Sinodale sa studieze aceasta problema si sa exprime o pozitie oficiala a
Patriarhiei Moscovei in aceasta privinta (punctul nr. 26 pe ordinea de zi). Intre timp, Comisia
Comuna, la adunarea din 31 octombrie, 2007 din Ravenna, desfasurata in lipsa vreunei delegatii
a Bisericii Ruse si fara considerarea opiniei acesteia, a adoptat un document cu privire la
Consecintele Bisericesti si Canonice ale Naturii Sacramentale a Bisericii. Dupa studiul
documentului de la Ravenna, Biserica Ortodoxa Rusa s-a aratat in dezacord cu el in ceea ce
priveste sinodalitatea si primatul la nivelul Bisericii Universale. Deoarece documentul de la
Ravenna face o distinctie intre cele trei nivele ale administratiei bisericesti, anume cel local,
regional si universal, pozitia urmatoare adoptata de Patriarhia Moscovei in problema primatului
in Biserica Universala se refera la aceasta cuprinzand toate cele trei nivele.
***

1. In Sfanta Biserica a lui Hristos, primatul apartine Capului sau – Domnul si

Mantuitorul nostru Iisus Hristos, Fiul lui Dumnezeu si Fiul Omului. Dupa Sfantul Pavel,
Domnul Iisus Hristos este capul trupului, al Bisericii; El este începutul, întâiul născut din
morţi, ca să fie El cel dintâi întru toate. (Col. 1:18).
Dupa invatatura apostolica,

Dumnezeul Domnului nostru Iisus Hristos, Tatăl slavei, L-a sculat din morti si L-a asezat
de-a dreapta Sa, în ceruri, mai presus decât toată începătoria şi stăpânia şi puterea şi domnia şi
decât tot numele ce se numeşte, nu numai în veacul acesta, ci şi în cel viitor. Şi toate le-a supus
sub picioarele Lui şi, mai presus de toate, L-a dat pe El cap Bisericii, Care este trupul Lui. (Ef.
1:17-23)

Biserica cea de pe pamant reprezinta nu numai o comunitate a celor care cred in Hristos,
dar si un organism divino-uman: Iar voi sunteţi trupul lui Hristos şi mădulare (fiecare) în
parte. (Cor. 12:27)
Asadar, diversele forme ale primatului din Biserica in calatoria ei istorica din aceasta lume
sunt secundare fata de primatul vesnic al lui Hristos drept Cap al Bisericii prin care Dumnezeu
Tatal le impaca pe toate cu Sine, fie cele de pe pământ, fie cele din ceruri (Col. 1:20). Primatul
in Biserica ar trebui sa fie, in primul rand, o slujire intru impacare cu scopul de a intari
armonia, dupa apostolul care ne cere să păzim unitatea Duhului, întru legătura păcii. (Ef.
4:3)
2. In viata Bisericii lui Hristos, care traieste in acest veac, primatul, impreuna cu
sinodalitatea, este unul din principiile fundamentale ale oranduirii sale. La fiecare din nivelele
vietii bisericesti, primatul generat istoric are o natura si o sursa diferita. Aceste nivele sunt 1)
Episcopia (eparhia), 2) Biserica Locala Autocefala si 3) Biserica Universala.
(1) La nivelul eparhiei, primatul apartine episcopului. Primatul episcopului in eparhia
sa are radacini solide, teologice si canonice, ajungand pana la Biserica Primara. Dupa invatatura
Sfantului Pavel, Duhul Sfânt a pus [episcopi] supraveghetori, ca să păstreze Biserica lui
Dumnezeu, pe care a câştigat-o cu însuşi sângele Său. (Fapte 20:28). Sursa primatului
episcopal in eparhie este succesiunea apostolica care se transmite prin hirotonirea
episcopilor.[1]
Episcopatul este un fundament esential al Bisericii: ‘Episcopul este in[tru] Biserica si
Biserica in[tru] episcop. Cine nu e cu episcopul, acela nu e in Biserica.‘ (Sf. Ciprian al
Cartaginei[2]). Sf. Ignatie Teoforul compara primatul episcopului in eparhia sa cu suprematia lui
Dumnezeu:

‘Straduiti-va sa faceti toate lucrurile in dumnezeiasca armonie, cu episcopul veghiind ca

Dumnezeu, cu preotii lucrand ca adunarea apostolilor si cu diaconii, ce imi  sunt atat de dragi
mie, incredintati cu slujirea lui Iisus Hristos, Care mai inainte de veci era la Tatal si la sfarsit S-
a aratat‘ (Epistola catre Magenesieni 6, 1).

In  eparhia sa, episcopul are putere deplina, sacramentala, administrativa si de autoritate

(magisteriu). Sf. Ignatie Teoforul ne invata:

‘Nimeni sa nu faca fara episcop ceva din cele ce apartin Bisericii. Acea0eEuharistie sa fie
socotita valida, care este facuta in prezenta episcopului sau de catre cel pe care episcopul l-a
investit… Fara consimtamantul episcopului nu este dupa randuiala nici a boteza, nici a face
agapa; ca este bineplacut lui Dumnezeu ceea ce incuviinteaza episcopul, ca tot ce se savarseste
sa fie sigur si intemeiat’. (Epistola catre Smirneni  8).

Puterea sfintitoare a episcopului e cel mai deplin exprimata in liturghie. Slujind liturghia,
episcopul este imaginea lui Hristos, reprezentand Biserica credinciosilor in fata lui Dumnezeu
Tatal, pe de o parte, si daruindu-le credinciosilor binecuvantarea lui Dumnezeu si hranindu-i cu
adevarata mancare si bautura duhovniceasca a euharistiei, de cealalta parte. In calitatea sa de cap
al eparhiei, episcopul conduce slujba dumnezeiasca a comunitatii, hirotoneste preotii si ii trimite
in parohii, autorizandu-i sa slujeasca liturghia si alte slujbe religioase.

Puterea administrativa a episcopului reiese din faptul ca preotii, monahii si laicatul eparhiei
sale, parohiile si manastirile, cu exceptia stavropighiilor, precum si diversele institutii eparhiale
(educationale, filantropice, etc.) fac asultare de el. Episcopul face dreptate in cazul incalcarii
randuielilor bisericesti. Canonul Apostolic spune:
 ‘Presbiterii şi diaconii să nu săvârşească nimic fără încuviinţarea episcopului, căci acesta
este cel căruia i s-a încredinţat poporul Domnului şi acela de Ia care se va cere socoteală
pentru sufletele lor.’ (Canonul 39)

(2) La nivelul Bisericii Locale Autocefale, primatul apartine episcopului ales ca

Intaistatator al Bisericii Locale de un Sinod al episcopilor acesteia.[3] Drept consecinta,
sursa primatului la nivelul Bisericii autocefale este alegerea celui dintai episcop de catre un
Sinod care detine puterea eclesiastica deplina. Acest primat are fundamente canonice solide,
provenind din vremea Sinoadelor Ecumenice.
Puterea Intaistatatorului unei Biserici Locale Autocefale e diferita de cea a
episcopului in eparhia sa: este puterea celui dintai dintre episcopii egali. El isi indeplineste
slujirea primatului conform traditiei bisericesti canonice universale exprimata in Canonul
Apostolic 34:
‘Se cade ca episcopii fiecărui neam să cunoască pe cel dintâi dintre dânşii şi să-l
socotească pe el drept căpetenie şi nimic mai de seamă (însemnat) să nu facă fără încuviinţarea
acestuia; şi fiecare să facă numai acelea care privesc (se referă la) parohia (eparhia) sa şi
satele de sub stăpânirea ei. Dar nici acela (cel dintâi) să nu facă ceva fără încuviinţarea tuturor,
căci numai astfel va fi înţelegere şi se va mări Dumnezeu prin Domnul în Duhul Sfânt: Tatăl şi
Fiul şi Sfântul Duh.’

Atributiile Intaistatatorului unei Biserici Locale Autocefale sunt definite de Sinod si sunt
fixate intr-un statut. Intaistatatorul unei Biserici Locale Autocefale are rolul de presedinte al
Sinodului acesteia. Astfel, Intaistatatorul nu are putere de unul singur intr-o Biserica
Locala Autocefala, ci o conduce in sinod, adica in cooperare cu alti episcopi.[4]
(3) La nivelul Bisericii Universale, ca o comunitate a Bisericilor Locale Autocefale unite
intr-o singura familie prin marturisirea aceluiasi crez si prin comuniunea euharistica a fiecareia
cu celelalte, primatul este determinat dupa traditia sfintelor diptice si este un primat
onorific. Aceasta traditie se trage din canoanele Sinoadelor Ecumenice (Canonul 3 al Sinodului
II Ecumenic, Canonul 28 al Sinodului IV Ecumenic si Canonul 36 al Sinodului VI Ecumenic) si
a fost reconfirmata de-a lungul istoriei bisericesti in actiunile Sinoadelor Bisericilor Locale si in
practica comemorarii (pomenirilor) liturghice prin care Intaistatatorul fiecarei Biserici
Autocefale pomeneste numele celorlalti Intaistatatori in ordinea stabilita de sfintele diptice.
Ordinea dipticelor s-a schimbat de-a lungul istoriei. In primul mileniu al istoriei
bisericesti, primatul onorific apartinea scaunului Romei.[5] Dupa ce comuniunea
euharistica dintre Roma si Constantinopol a fost rupta in mijlocul secolului XI, primatul in
Biserica Ortodoxa a trecut la noul scaun din ordinea dipticelor, anume la
Constantinopol. Din acel moment pana in prezent, primatul onorific in Biserica Ortodoxa la
nivel universal a apartinut Patriarhului Constantinopolului ca cel dintai dintre Intaistatatorii egali
ai Bisericilor Locale Ortodoxe.
Sursa primatului onorific la nivelul Bisericii Universale o constituie traditia canonica a
Bisericii stabilita in sfintele diptice si recunoscuta de toate Bisericile Locale autocefale. Primatul
onorific la nivel universal nu este formulat de canoane ale Sinoadelor Ecumenice sau
Locale. Canoanele pe care se bazeaza sfintele diptice nu confera Intaistatatorului (cum ar fi
episcopul Romei pe vremea Sinoadelor Ecumenice) atributii la scara Bisericii Universale.
[6]
Denaturarile bisericesti care atribuie Primatului de la nivelul universal functiile de
conducere inerente primatului de la celelalte nivele bisericesti sunt cunoscute in literatura
polemica a celui de-al doilea mileniu drept “papism”.
3. Din cauza faptului ca natura primatului de la diferitele nivele ale oranduirii bisericesti
(eparhial, local, universal) variaza, functiile ‘celui dintai’ de la fiecare nivel nu sunt identice si
nu pot fi transferate de la un nivel la altul.
A transfera functiile primatului de la nivelul eparhial la cel universal inseamna a recunoaste
o forma speciala de slujire unui “ierarh universal” care ar detine atributiile de autoritate si pe cele
administrative peste intreaga Biserica Universala. Eliminand egalitatea episcopilor, aceasta
recunoastere duce la aparitia jurisdictiei unui ierarh primat universal care niciodata nu a
fost mentionata, nici in sfintele canoane, nici in traditia patristica, si care ar duce la
slabirea sau chiar eliminarea autocefaliei Bisericilor Locale.
La randul ei, extinderea autocefaliei inerente primatului unei Biserici Locale
Autocefale (dupa Canonul Apostolic 34) la nivel universal[7] ar da primatului Bisericii
Universale puteri speciale indiferent daca Bisericile Ortodoxe Locale ar fi de acord sau
nu. O asemenea intelegere a naturii primatului de la nivelul local la cel universal ar cere,
deasemenea, ca procedura alegerii primatului sa fie mutata la nivel universal, ceea ce ar
contrazice dreptul celei dintai Biserici Locale autocefale de a-si alege singura propriul
Intaistatator.
4. Domnul si Mantuitorul nostru Iisus Hristos si-a avertizat ucenicii impotriva iubirii
de stapanire (Mat. 20:25-28). Biserica s-a opus dintotdeauna ideilor strambe cu privire la
primat, care au inceput sa se infiltreze in viata bisericeasca din vremuri stravechi.[8]  In
deciziile Sinoadelor si in lucrarile Sfintilor Parinti, astfel de abuzuri de putere au fost
condamnate.[9]
Episcopii Romei, care se bucurau de primatul onorific in Biserica Universala, au fost
intotdeauna, din punctul de vedere al Bisericilor din Rasarit, patriarhi ai Apusului, adica
Intaistatatori ai Bisericii Locale Apusene. In orice caz, inca din primul mileniu al istoriei
bisericesti, a inceput sa fie dezvoltata in Apus o doctrina a unei puteri speciale a
episcopului Romei, care ar fi de origine divina si care s-ar intinde pe tot cuprinsul Bisericii
Universale.
Biserica Ortodoxa a respins doctrina Bisericii Romei despre primatul papal si despre
originea divina a puterii intaiului episcop in Biserica Universala. Teologii ortodocsi au
subliniat intotdeuna faptul ca Biserica Romei e una din Bisericile Locale Autocefale, fara
vreun drept de a-si extinde jurisdictia pe teritoriul altor Biserici Locale. De asemenea, au
mai considerat ca primatul onorific acordat episcopilor Romei este instituit nu de catre
Dumnezeu, ci de catre oameni.[10]
Pe tot parcursul celui de-al doilea mileniu pana astazi, Biserica Ortodoxa a pastrat structura
administrativa caracteristica Bisericii Rasaritene a primului mileniu. In cadrul acestei structuri,
fiecare Biserica Locala Autocefala, fiind in unitate dogmatica, canonica si euharistica cu celelalte
Biserici Locale, se conduce singura. In Biserica Ortodoxa nu a existat niciodata vreun centru
administrativ la nivel global.
In Apus, dimpotriva, dezvoltarea unei doctrine despre puterea speciala a episcopului
Romei, conform careia puterea suprema in Biserica Universala apartine epsicopului Romei
ca succesor al Sf. Petru si ca vicar al lui Hristos pe pamant, a dus la formarea unui model
administrativ de oranduire bisericeasca complet diferit, cu un singur centru universal la
Roma.[11]
Corespunzator celor doua modele diferite de oranduire bisericeasca s-au format modalitati
diferite de a intelege canonicitatea unei comunitati bisericesti. In traditia catolica, conditia
necesara pentru canonicitate o constituie unitatea euharistica a comunitatii particulare cu
scaunul Romei. In traditia ortodoxa, e canonica acea comunitate care e parte dintr-o
Biserica Locala Autocefala si, prin aceasta, este in unitate euharistica cu celelalte Biserici
Locale canonice.
Dupa cum se stie, incercarile de a impune modelul Apusean al oranduirii
administrative in Biserica Rasariteana au fost intotdeauna intampinate cu rezistenta din
partea Rasaritului Ortodox. Aceasta este reflectat in documente bisericesti[12] si in
literatura polemica indreptata impotriva papismului, care formeaza o parte a Traditiei
Bisericii Ortodoxe.
5. Primatul in Biserica Ortodoxa Universala, care e primat onorific prin insasi natura sa si
nu un primat de putere, e foarte important pentru marturisirea Ortodoxiei in lumea moderna.

Scaunul patriarhal al Constantinopolului se bucura de primatul onorific in baza sfintelor

diptice recunoscute de catre toate Bisericile Ortodoxe Locale. Continutul acestui primat e definit
prin consensul Bisericilor Ortodoxe Locale, exprimat la conferintele pan-Ortodoxe pentru
pregatirea unui Sinod Mare si Sfant al Bisericii Ortodoxe.[13]

Exercitand primatul in acest fel, Intaistatatorul Bisericii din Constantinopol poate initia
activitati la nivelul intregii crestinatati si poate vorbi lumii in numele intregii lumi Ortodoxe, cu
conditia ca el sa fie imputernicit in acest sens de catre toate Bisericile Ortodoxe Locale.

6. Primatul in Biserica lui Hristos e menit slujirii unitatii duhovnicesti a membrilor sai si
pentru a mentine viata acesteia in buna randuiala, pentru că Dumnezeu nu este al neorânduielii,
ci al păcii.(1Cor 14:33) Slujirea ‘celui dintai’ din Biserica, straina iubirii trecatoare de putere, are
ca scop zidirea trupului lui Hristos… incat noi... ţinând adevărul, în iubire, să creştem întru
toate pentru El, Care este capul – Hristos. Din El, tot trupul bine alcătuit şi bine încheiat, prin
toate legăturile care îi dau tărie, îşi săvârşeşte creşterea, potrivit lucrării măsurate fiecăruia din
mădulare, şi se zideşte întru dragoste. (Efes. 4:12-16)

Note 
[1] Include alegerea, hirotonirea si primirea din partea Bisericii.

[2] Ep. 69.8, PL 4, 406A (Scrisoarea 54 in versiunea rusa)

[3] De regula, primul dintre episcopi ocupa scaunul principal (primul) din teritoriul canonic
al Bisericii lui.

[4] Biserica Locala Autocefala poate include entitati bisericesti complexe. De exemplu, in
Biserica Ortodoxa Rusa se gasesc Biserici autonome care se auto-guverneaza, regiuni
metropolitane, exarhate si metropole. Fiecare din ele are forma sa proprie a primatului definita de
un Sinod Local si reflectata in statutul bisericesc.

[5] O referinta la primatul onorific al scaunului Romei si la al doilea loc al scaunului

Constantinopolului este facuta in Canonul 3 al Sinodului II Ecumenic:
 ‘Episcopul Constantinopolului trebuie sa aiba intaietatea cinstei dupa episcopul Romei,
deoarece aceasta este Roma noua.’

Canonul 28 al Sinodului IV Ecumenic clarifica aceasta regula si arata motivul canonic

pentru care Roma si Constantinopolul se bucura de primatul onorific:

‘Parintii dupa dreptate i-au conferit privilegiile (care apartin) scaunului Romei celei
vechi pentru ca era orasul imperial. Si astfel, indemnati de aceleasi considerente, cei 150 de
episcopi iubiti de Dumnezeu au acordat privilegii egale sfantului scaun al Noii Rome, socotind
cu dreptate ca cetatea care s-a cinstit cu imparatia si cu senatul si care a dobandit privilegii
egale cu ale Romei -cetatea imparateasca cea veche – , trebuie sa fie ridicata si ea deopotriva
cu Vechea Roma  in cele bisericesti, fiind a doua dupa aceea.’
[6] Exista canoane folosite in scrierile polemice pentru a acorda justificare canonica puterii
judiciare a primului scaun al Romei. Acestea sunt Canoanele 4 si 5 ale Consiliului din Sardica
(343). Aceste canoane, insa, nu afirma ca drepturile scaunului Romei de a primi plangeri se
intind la intreaga Biserica Universala. Se stie din manuscrisele canonice ca aceste drepturi nu
erau nelimitate nici macar in Apus. Astfel, deja Sinodul din Cartagina din 256, condus de Sf.
Ciprian, raspunzand pretentiilor Romei la primat, exprima pozitia urmatoare despre relatiile
dintre episcopi:

‘nimeni dintre noi nu s-a facut pe sine episcop peste episcopi, nici nu-l sileste vreunul pe
altul sa se supuna; caci oricare episcop, dupa masura propriei libertati si puteri, are dreptul la
propria judecata, si nu poate fi judecat de catre altul dupa cum nici el nu-l poate judeca pe
altul. Haideti sa asteptam cu totii judecata Domnului nostru Iisus Hristos, care e singurul in
masura atat sa ne aleaga in conducerea Bisericii cat si sa ne judece in cele ce facem
acolo’ (Sententiae episcoporum, PL 3, 1085C; 1053A-1054A).
Acelasi lucru e afirmat in Scrisoarea Sinodului African catre Celestin, papa al Romei (424),
care face parte din toate editiile cu autoritate ale codului canonic, Cartea Canoanelor, ca un
canon al Sinodului din Cartagina. In aceasta scrisoare, Sinodul respinge dreptul papei de la Roma
de a accepta reclamatii impotriva hotararilor luate de consiliul episcopilor africani: ‘Va rog
staruitor ca, pe viitor, sa nu primiti cu usurinta in audienta persoane venite in acest scop, nici sa
intrati in comuniune cu cei care au fost excomunicati de noi…’ Canonul 118 al Sinodului din
Cartagina interzice practica reclamatiilor adresate Bisericilor din alte tinuturi – ceea ce include si
Roma: ‘Clericii care au fost osanditi, daca nu sunt de acord cu judecata, nu vor face reclamatie
in alte tinuturi, ci episcopilor din preajma si episcopului locului; daca fac altfel, sa fie
excomunicati in Africa.’

[7] Dupa cum e stiut, nu exista nici un canon care sa permita un asemenea lucru.

[8] Inca din vremea apostolilor, Sf. Ioan Teologul il condamna pe Diotref ‘care ţine să
fie cel dintâi între ei’ (3 Ioan 1:9)
 [9] Astfel, Sinodul III Ecumenic, incercand sa apere dreptul Bisericii Ciprului de a avea
propriul intaistatator, spune in Canonul 8:

‘Întâistătătorii sfintelor biserici din Cipru să aibă putere, fără tulburare şi fără silă, după
canoanele cuvioşilor părinţi şi după vechiul obicei să fie făcute de către dânşii hirotoniile
preaevlavioşilor episcopi. Aceasta să se păzească şi în celelalte dieceze şi în eparhiile
(mitropoliile) de pretutindeni, încât nici unul dintre preaiubitorii de Dumnezeu episcopi să nu
cuprindă (să nu apuce) altă eparhie, care nu a fost mai demult şi dintru început sub mâna lui
sau a celor dinaintea lui. Iar dacă cineva a cuprins (ocupat) eparhie străină şi în chip silnic a
pus-o sub el (sub stăpânirea lui), pe aceasta să o dea înapoi (restituie), ca să nu se calce
canoanele părinţilor şi nici sub cuvânt (sub chipul sau pretextul) de lucrare simţită să se
furişeze trufia stăpânirii lumeşti, şi să nu trecem cu vederea că pierdem câte puţin slobozenia
(libertatea) pe care ne-a dăruit-o nouă cu sângele Său Domnul nostru Iisus Hristos,
Izbăvitorul tuturor oamenilor.’
[10] Astfel, in secolul XIII, Sf. Gherman din Constantinopol a scris,

‘Sunt cinci patriarhii cu o arie bine precizata pentru fiecare. Dar, in vremurile mai recente
a aparut o schisma intre ele, pornita de o mana indrazneata care cauta sa comande si sa
stapaneasca in Biserica. Hristos e capul Bisericii si orice incercare de a obtine controlul e
impotriva invataturii Lui’ ( citat in Соколов И.И. Лекции по истории Греко-Вос точной
Церкви. – СПб., 2005. С.129).

In secolul XIV, Nil Cavasila, Arhiepiscopul Tesalonicului, a scris despre primatul

episcopului Romei:

‘papa are, intr-adevar, doua privilegii: el este episcopul Romei… si este cel dintai dintre
episcopi. De la Petru a primit episcopia Romei; cat despre primat, acesta l-a primit mult mai
tarziu de la preafericitii Parinti si de la Imparatii evlaviosi, caci era de trebuinta ca problemele
bisericesti sa fie rezolvate cu randuiala’ (De primatu papae, PG 149, 701 CD).

Sfintia Sa Patriarhul Bartolomeu spune:

‘Noi toti, ortodocsii… suntem convinsi ca in primul mileniu al Bisericii, in vremea Bisericii
nedespartite (sic!), primatul episcopului Romei, al papei, era recunoscut. In orice caz, era un
primat onorific, intru iubire, fara a fi o stapanire legala asupra intregii Biserici crestine. Cu alte
cuvinte, dupa teologia noastra, acest primat e de ordin omenesc; a fost stabilit din necesitatea
ca Biserica sa aiba un cap si un centru de coordonare’ (comunicat catre mass-media Bulgara,
noiembrie 2007).
 [11] Diferentele in randuiala bisericeasca intre Biserica Romano Catolica si Biserica
Ortodoxa pot fi observate nu numai la nivel universal, dar si la nivel local si eparhial.

[12] In Enciclica din 1848, Patriarhii Rasaritului au condamnat faptul ca episcopii Romei
au transformat primatul onorific in domnie asupra intregii Biserici Universale:

‘Vedem acest primat transformat dintr-o natura frateasca si un privilegiu ierarhic intr-o
superioritate domneasca.’ (Par. 13)
Demnitatea Bisericii Romei, spune Enciclica,

‘nu e aceea a puterii supreme, cu care Sf. Petru insusi nu a fost niciodata investit, ci este
un privilegiu fratesc in Biserica Universala si o cinste acordata Papilor, datorata maretiei si
privilegiului Cetatii’ (Par. 13)

[13] Vezi, in particular, Decizia celei de-a IV-a Conferinte Pan-Ortodoxe (1968), Par. 6,7; 
Procedura Conferintelor Pre-Sinodale Pan-Ortodoxe (1986), Par. 2,13.

– traducere de S.P. pentru razbointrucuvant –

Nota noastra:
Desi pare a fi o precizare a Bisericii Rusiei fata de catolici, documentul de mai sus are mai
multa semnificatie in interiorul ortodoxiei decat in afara ei. Reflecta, mai degraba, un joc de
putere intre Patriarhia Rusa si Patriarhia Ecumenica decat o simpla respingere a papismului (desi
una nu o exclude neaparat pe cealalta).

De altfel, Patriarhul Bartolomeu a dat deja o replica acestui document, invocand

“Biserica Mama” a Constantinopolului in raport cu lumea slava (mai exista o reactie
teologica din spatiul grec pe care o vom anunta imediat ce va fi publicata traducerea in
romana). Mai prost este ca, in aceasta concurenta, Papa ajunge sa fie un actor care poate intari
sau slabi prestigiul si puterea unui centru ortodox in functie de legaturile pe care acesta le
dezvolta cu el. Asa gandeste Patriarhul Ecumenic, care invoca intalnirea ce va avea loc cu Papa
Francisc, la Ierusalim, tocmai pentru a-si demonstra prestigiul deosebit in intreaga lume ortodoxa
si faptul ca o reprezinta in astfel de circumstante. Oare cum va profita iezuitul si mult
priceputul in viclenii Papa Francisc de aceasta rivalitate din sanul ortodoxiei?
In ceea ce priveste pozitia Patriarhiei Moscovei, am avea doua observatii de facut.

Pe langa lucrurile foarte bune si corecte despre papism, se surprinde un oarecare

accent exclusiv episcopal in document. Mai precis, este vorba despre cum sunt definite atributiile
(puterea) episcopului. In document s-a folosit termenul englezesc de “magisterial” – pe care noi
l-am tradus cu cel de “autoritate”:
In his church domain, the bishop has full power, sacramental, administrative
and magisterial. 
Insa sensul “magisteriului“ este cel de autoritate in “invatatura”. Dupa cum am vazut,
conform documentului rus, episcopul are deplina putere de invatatura, putere dogmatica. Nu se
insista pe aceasta tema, insa, alaturi de expresia “deplina putere ecleziastica” asociata Sinodului
 Autocefal care alege Primatul unei Biserici Locale, parca s-ar vadi o conceptie care restrange
problemele invataturii si cele bisericesti la clerici si – mai precis – la episcopi. Ceea ce, chiar
conform Enciclicei Patriarhilor Rasariteni din 1848 citata in document, nu ar fi prea conform
Predaniei:
“nestricarea dogmei si curatia randuielii nu sunt date in paza unei ierarhii oarecare, ci
a  intregului  cler si popor bisericesc…” 
Dar, poate specificul subiectului tratat de rusi, problemele puse de traduceri succesive si
nepriceprea noastra in ale teologiei ne fac sa vedem probleme unde nu ar fi. Cat ne pricepem, le
ridicam, insa, pentru a fi lamurite, eventual, de cei care sunt mai competenti.

A doua observatie se leaga de unul din citatele folosite de rusi (vezi nota 9):

‘Iar dacă cineva a cuprins (ocupat) eparhie străină şi în chip silnic a pus-o sub el (sub
stăpânirea lui), pe aceasta să o dea înapoi (restituie), ca să nu se calce canoanele părinţilor şi
nici sub cuvânt (sub chipul sau pretextul) de lucrare simţită să se furişeze trufia stăpânirii
lumeşti, şi să nu trecem cu vederea că pierdem câte puţin slobozenia (libertatea) pe care ne-a
dăruit-o nouă cu sângele Său Domnul nostru Iisus Hristos, Izbăvitorul tuturor oamenilor.’
Chiar asa, de ce nu respecta acest canon Patriarhia Moscovei in privinta Basarabiei?

--

The Russian Orthodox ChurchDepartment for External Church

Relations

 PATRIARCHAL MINISTRY
 SPEECHES
 SERMONS

News > Inter-Orthodox relations > Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the

Universal Church
26.12.2013 23:57

POSITION OF THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE ON THE PROBLEM OF PRIMACY IN THE

UNIVERSAL CHURCH
Inter-Orthodox relations, Inter-Christian relations, News, New documents






 

The problem of primacy in the Universal Church has been repeatedly raised during the work of the
Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman
Catholic Church. On March 27, 2007, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church instructed the
Synodal Theological Commission to study this problem and draft an official position of the Moscow
Patriarchate on the problem (Minutes, No. 26). Meanwhile, the Joint Commission at its meeting on
October 13, 2007, in Ravenna, working in the absence of a delegation of the Russian Church and
without consideration for her opinion, adopted a document on the Ecclesiological and Canonical
Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Having studied the Ravenna document, the
Russian Orthodox Church disagreed with it in the part that refers to synodality and primacy on the
level of the Universal Church. Since the Ravenna document makes a distinction between three levels
of church administration, namely, local, regional and universal, the following position taken by the
Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church deals with this problem on the
three levels as well.

1. In the Holy Church of Christ, primacy belongs to her Head – our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man. According to St. Paul, the Lord Jesus Christ  is the
head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in
all things he might have the pre-eminence (Col. 1:18).

According to the apostolic teaching, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, raised him
from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and
power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in
that which is to come.And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be   the head over all
things to the church,which is his body  (Eph. 1:17-23).

The Church, which is on the earth, represents not only a community of those who believe in Christ but
also a divine-human organism: Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular  (1 Cor.
12:27).

Accordingly, various forms of primacy in the Church in her historical journey in this world are
secondary versus the eternal primacy of Christ as Head of the Church by whom God the
Father reconciles all things unto himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven  (Col.
1:20). Primacy in the Church should be in the first place a ministry of reconciliation with the aim to
build harmony, according to the apostle who calls to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace (Eph. 4:3).

1. In the life of the Church of Christ, which lives in this age, primacy, along with synodality, is
one of the fundamental principles of her order. On various levels of church life, the historically
established primacy has a different nature and  different sources.  These levels are 1) the
diocese (eparchy), 2) the autocephalous Local Church, and 3) Universal Church.

(1)               On the level of diocese, primacy belongs to the bishop. The bishop’s primacy in his
diocese has solid theological and canonical foundations tracing back to the early Christian Church.
According to the teaching of St. Paul, the Holy Ghost hath made  [bishops] overseers, to feed the
church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28). The source of the
bishop’s primacy in his diocese is the apostolic succession handed down through episcopal
consecration.[1]

The ministry of the bishop is an essential foundation of the Church: ‘The bishop is in the church and
the church is in the bishop and that if somebody is not with the bishop, he is not in the church’ (St.
Cyprian of Carthage[2]). St. Ignatius the God-Bearer compares the bishop’s primacy in his diocese to
the supremacy of God: ‘Study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the
place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your
deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with
the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed’ (Letter to the Magenesians, 6).
In his church domain, the bishop has full power, sacramental, administrative and magisterial. St.
Ignatius the God-Bearer teaches us: ‘Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that
appertain unto the church. Let that Eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the
presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it… It is not lawful either to
baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of,
that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure’ (Letter to
the Smyrnaeans, 7).

The bishop’s sacramental power is most fully expressed in the Eucharist. In celebrating it, the bishop
represents the image of Christ, presenting the Church of the faithful in the face of God the Father, on
one hand, and giving the faithful God’s blessing and nourishing them with the truly spiritual food and
drink of the Eucharistic sacrament, on the other. As head of his diocese, the bishop leads the
congregation’s divine worship, ordains clergy and assigns them to church parishes, authorizing them
to celebrate the Eucharist and other sacraments and religious rites.

The bishop’s administrative power is expressed in that the clergy, monastics and laity of his diocese as
well as parishes and monasteries, except for stauropegial ones, and various diocesan institutions
(educational, charitable, etc.) obey him. The bishop administers justice in cases of ecclesial offences.
The Apostolic Canons state: ‘Let not the presbyters or deacons do anything without the sanction of the
bishop; for he it is who is entrusted with the people of the Lord and of whom will be required the
account of their souls’ (Canon 39).

(2)               On the level of the autocephalous Local Church, primacy belongs to the bishop elected as
Primate of the Local Church by a Council of her bishops. [3] Accordingly, the source of primacy on
the level of the autocephalous Church is the election of the pre-eminent bishop by a Council (or a
Synod) that enjoys the fullness of ecclesiastical power. This primacy is based on solid canonical
foundations tracing back to the era of Ecumenical Councils.

The power of the Primate in an autocephalous Local Church is different from that of a bishop in his
church domain: it is the power of the first among equal bishops. He fulfils his ministry of primacy in
conformity with the church-wide canonical tradition expressed in Apostolic Canon 34: ‘It behoves the
Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise
him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval:
but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by his
territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and
approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit,
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit’.

The powers of the Primate of an autocephalous Local Church are defined by a Council (Synod) and
fixed in a statute. The Primate of an autocephalous Local Church acts as chairman of her Council (or
Synod). Thus, the Primate does not have one-man power in an autocephalous Local Church but
governs her in council, that is, in cooperation with other bishops.[4]

(3)       On 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 sacramental communion with one another,
primacy is determined in conformity with the tradition of sacred diptychs and represents  primacy in
honour. This tradition can be traced back to the canons of Ecumenical Councils (Canon 3 of the
Second Ecumenical Council, Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canon 36 of the Sixth
Ecumenical Council) and has been reconfirmed throughout church history in the actions of Councils of
individual Local Churches and in the practice of liturgical commemoration whereby the Primate of each
Autocephalous Church mentions the names of those of other Local Churches in the order prescribed by
the sacred diptychs.

The order in diptychs has been changing in history. In the first millennium of church history, the
primacy of honour used to belong to the chair of Rome.[5] After the Eucharistic community between
Rome and Constantinople was broken in the mid-11 th century, primacy in the Orthodox Church went to
the next chair in the diptych order, namely, to that of Constantinople. Since that time up to the
present, the primacy of honour in the Orthodox Church on the universal level has belonged to the
Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equal Primates of Local Orthodox Churches.
The source of primacy in honour on the level of the Universal Church lies in the canonical tradition
of the Church fixed in the sacred diptychs and recognized by all the autocephalous Local Churches.
The primacy of honour on the universal level is not informed by canons of Ecumenical or Local
Councils. The 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
scale.[6]

The ecclesiological distortions ascribing to the primus on the universal level the functions
of governance  inherent in primates on other levels of church order are named in the polemical
literature of the second millennium as “papism”.

3.         Due to the fact that the nature of primacy, which exists at various levels of church order
(diocesan, local and universal) vary, the functions of the primus on various levels are not identical and
cannot be transferred from one level to another.

To transfer the functions of the ministry of primacy from the level of an eparchy to the universal level
means to recognize a special form of ministry, notably, that of a ‘universal hierarch’ possessing the
magisterial and administrative power in the whole Universal Church. By eliminating the sacramental
equality of bishops, such recognition leads to the emergence of a jurisdiction of a universal first
hierarch never mentioned either in holy canons or patristic tradition and resulting in the derogation or
even elimination of the autocephaly of Local Churches.

In its turn, the extension of the primacy inherent in the primate of an autocephalous Local Church
(according to Apostolic Canon 34) to the universal level[7] would give the primus in the Universal
Church special powers regardless of whether Local Orthodox Churches agree to it or not. Such a
transfer in the understanding of the nature of primacy from local to universal level would also require
that the primus election procedure be accordingly moved up to the universal level, which would as
much as violate the right of the pre-eminent autocephalous Local Church to elect her Primate on her
own.

4.         The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ warned his disciples against the love of rulers (cf. Mt.
20:25-28). The Church has always opposed distorted ideas of primacy, which have begun to creep
into church life from old times.[8] In Councils’ decisions and works of holy fathers, such abuses of
power were condemned.[9]

The bishops of Rome, who enjoy the primacy of honour in the Universal Church, from the point of view
of Eastern Churches, have always been patriarchs of the West, that is, primates of the Western Local
Church. However, already in the first millennium of church history, a doctrine on a special divinely-
originated magisterial and administrative power of the bishop of Roman as extending to the whole
Universal Church began to be formed in the West.

The Orthodox Church rejected the doctrine of the Roman Church on papal primacy and the divine
origin of the power of the first bishop in the Universal Church. Orthodox theologians have always
insisted that the Church of Rome is one of the autocephalous Local Churches with no right to extend
her jurisdiction to the territory of other Local Churches. They also believed that primacy in honour
accorded to the bishops of Rome is instituted not by God but men.[10]

Throughout the second millennium up to today, the Orthodox Church has preserved the administrative
structure characteristic of the Eastern Church of the first millennium. Within this structure, each
autocephalous Local Church, being in dogmatic, canonical and Eucharistic unity with other Local
Churches, is independent in governance. In the Orthodox Church, there was no and has never been a
single administrative center on the universal level.

In the West, on the contrary, the development of a doctrine on the special power of the bishop of
Rome whereby the supreme power in the Universal Church belongs to the bishop of Rome as
successor to St. Peter and vicar of Christ on the earth has led to the formation of a completely
different administrative model of church order with a single universal center in Rome.[11]
In accordance with the two different models of church order, different ways, in which the conditions
for canonicity of a church community were seen, were presented. In the Catholic tradition, the
necessary condition for canonicity is the Eucharistic unity of a particular church community with the
chair of Rome. In the Orthodox tradition, canonical is a community which is part of an autocephalous
Local Church, and through this it is in the Eucharistic unity with other canonical Local Churches.

As is known, attempts to impose the Western model of administrative order upon the Eastern Church
were invariably met with resistance in the Orthodox East. This is reflected in church
documents[12] and polemical literature aimed against papism, which comprise a part of the Tradition
of the Orthodox Church.

5.         Primacy in the Universal Orthodox Church, which is the primacy of honour by its very nature,
rather than that of power, is very important for the Orthodox witness in the modern world.

The patriarchal chair of Constantinople enjoys the primacy of honour on the basis of the sacred
diptychs recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches. The content of this primacy is defined by a
consensus of Local Orthodox Churches expressed in particular at pan-Orthodox conferences for
preparation of a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church[13].

In exercising his primacy in this way, the Primate of the Church of Constantinople can offer initiatives
of general Christian scale and address the external world on behalf of the Orthodox plenitude provided
he has been empowered to do so by all the Local Orthodox Churches.

6.         Primacy in the Church of Christ is called to serve the spiritual unity of her members and to
keep her life in good order, for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace (1 Cor. 14:33). The
ministry of the primus in the Church, alien to temporal love of power, has as its goal the edifying of
the body of Christ…that we…by speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which
is the head, even Christ,from whom the whole body…according to the effectual working in the
measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love (Eph. 4:12-16).

[1] It includes election, consecration and reception by the Church.

[2] Ep. 69.8, PL 4, 406A (Letter 54 in the Russian version)

[3] As a rule, the pre-eminent bishop heads the main (pre-eminent) chair in the canonical territory of
his Church.

[4] The autocephalous Local Church can include complex church entities. For instance, in the Russian
Orthodox Church, there are autonomous and self-governed Churches, metropolitan regions,
exarchates and metropolises. Each of them has its own form of primacy defined by a Local Council and
reflected in the church statute.

[5] A reference to the primacy of honour of the chair of Rome and the second place of the chair of
Constantinople is made in Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council: ‘The Bishop of Constantinople,
however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is
New Rome’. Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council clarifies this rule and points to the canonical
reason for the primacy of honour of Rome and Constantinople: ‘The Fathers in fact have correctly
attributed the prerogatives (which belong) to the see of the most ancient Rome because it was the
imperial city. And thus moved by the same reasoning, the one hundred and fifty bishops beloved of
God have accorded equal prerogatives to the very holy see of New Rome, justly considering that the
city that is honored by the imperial power and the senate and enjoying (within the civil order) the
prerogatives equal to those of Rome, the most ancient imperial city, ought to be as elevated as Old
Rome in the affairs of the Church, being in the second place after it’.
[6] There are canons used in polemical literature to give a canonical justification to the judicial powers
of the first chair of Rome. These are Canons 4 and 5 of the Council of Sardica (343). These canons,
however, do not state that the rights of the chair of Rome to accept appeals are extended to the whole
Universal Church. It is known from the canonical codex that these rights were not limitless even in the
West. Thus, already the 256 Council of Carthage chaired by St. Cyprian responded to the claims of
Rome to primacy expressed the following opinion about relations between bishops: ‘neither does any
one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague
to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power,
has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can
judge another. But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that
has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct
there’ (Sententiae episcoporum, PL 3, 1085C; 1053A-1054A). The same is stated in the Letter of the
Council of Africa to Celestine, the pope of Rome (424), which is included in all the authoritative
editions of the code of canons, particularly, Book of Canons as a canon of the Council of Carthage. In
this letter the Council rejects the right of the pope of Rome to accept appeals against judgements
made by the Council of African Bishops: ‘We earnestly conjure you, that for the future you do not
readily admit to a hearing persons coming hence, nor choose to receive to your communion those who
have been excommunicated by us…’. Canon 118 of the Council of Carthage forbids to make appeals to
Churches in overseas countries – which is anyway implied by Rome as well: Clerics who have been
condemned, if they take exception to the judgment, shall not appeal beyond seas, but to the
neighbouring bishops, and to their own; if they do otherwise let them be excommunicated in Africa’.

[7] As is known, there is not a single canon that would allow of such practice.

[8] As far back as the apostolic times, St. John the Theologian in his Epistle condemned Diotrephes
‘who loves to be the first’ (3 Jn. 1:9).

[9] Thus, the Third Ecumenical Council, seeking to protect the right of the Church of Cyprus to have
her own head, stated in its Canon 8: ‘the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without
dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of
performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops. The same rule shall be observed
in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved Bishops shall
assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his
own hand or that of his predecessors. But if any one has violently taken and subjected [a Province],
he shall give it up; lest the Canons of the Fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour
be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty
which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own Blood’.

[10] Thus, in the 13 th century St. Herman of Constantinople wrote, ‘There are five patriarchates with
certain boundaries for each. However, in the recent time a schism has arisen among them, initiated by
a daring hand which seeks to dominate and prevail in the Church. The Head of the Church is Christ,
and every attempt to obtain domination is contrary to His teaching’ (cit. in Соколов И.И. Лекции по
истории Греко-Восточной Церкви. – СПб., 2005. С.129).

In the 14th century, Nilus Cabasilas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, wrote on the primacy of the bishop of
Rome, ‘the pope indeed has two privileges: he is the bishop of Rome… and he is the first among the
bishops. From Peter he has received the Roman episcopacy; as to the primacy, he received it much
later from the blessed Fathers and the pious Emperors, for its was just that ecclesiastical affairs be
accomplished in order’ (De primatu papae, PG 149, 701 CD).

His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew states, ‘We all, the Orthodox… are convinced that in the first
millennium of the existence of the Church, in the times of the undivided Church, the primacy of the
bishop of Rome, the pope, was recognized. However, it was honorary primacy, in love, without being
legal dominion over the whole Christian Church. In other words, according to our theology, this
primacy is of human order; it was established because of the need for the Church to have a head and
a coordinating center’ (from the address to the Bulgarian mass media, November 2007).

[11] Differences in the church order of the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church can be
seen not only on universal but also local and diocesan levels.
[12] In the 1848 Encyclical, the Eastern Patriarchs condemn the fact that bishops of Rome turned the
primacy of honour into lordship over the whole Universal Church: “We see very primacy transformed
from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority.” (Par. 13). The dignity of
the Church of Rome, the Encyclical states, “is not that of a lordship, to which St. Peter himself was
never ordained, but is a brotherly privilege in the Catholic Church, and an honor assigned the Popes
on account of the greatness and privilege of the City” (Par. 13).

[13] See in particular, the Decision of the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Conference (1968), Par. 6, 7; the
Procedure of Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences (1986), Par. 2, 13.