Papal Supremacy

Roman Catholic teaching today goes far beyond saying that Rome held a primacy of honor. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states that the bishop of Rome, as successor of Peter, “possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church.” Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium likewise teaches that the Roman Pontiff has “full, supreme and universal power over the Church” and is “always free to exercise this power.” In the First Vatican Council’s Pastor aeternus, Rome defined that the Roman Church possesses a “pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church,” and that the pope’s jurisdiction is “episcopal and immediate,” binding both clergy and faithful in matters of faith, morals, discipline, and government.

From an Orthodox perspective, this is the problem. Orthodoxy does not need to deny Peter’s prominence, Rome’s ancient prestige, or the usefulness of a visible primacy for unity. The objection is that later Roman Catholic doctrine turns primacy into monarchy: one bishop possessing ordinary jurisdiction over all other bishops and local churches. That, Orthodoxy argues, is not the ecclesiology of the early Church.

Scripture gives Peter a prominent role. Christ says to Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” and gives him the keys of the kingdom in Matthew 16:18–19. Christ also commands Peter, “Feed my sheep,” in John 21:15–17, and tells him, “strengthen your brothers,” in Luke 22:31–32. Roman Catholic theology sees these texts as foundational for Petrine primacy and papal jurisdiction.

Orthodoxy reads these passages within the larger New Testament picture. Peter is prominent, but not isolated above the apostolic college as a monarch. In Matthew 18:18, the authority to bind and loose is given more broadly to the disciples. In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council settles the Gentile controversy conciliarity: apostles and elders gather, debate, listen, and issue a common judgment. Peter speaks, but James also gives a decisive pastoral judgment in Acts 15:13–21. In Galatians 2:11–14, Paul publicly corrects Peter at Antioch, which is difficult to square with an early model where Peter functions as an unchallengeable universal governor. Peter himself exhorts fellow presbyters not as a supreme monarch, but as a “fellow elder” in 1 Peter 5:1–4, warning leaders not to domineer over those entrusted to them.

The early canons also matter. Nicaea I, canon 6 recognizes the ancient customs of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, allowing Alexandria jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis because a similar custom existed with Rome. The canon clearly recognizes major regional centers, but it does not present Rome as possessing direct ordinary jurisdiction over the entire Church.

Constantinople I, canon 2 strengthens the same regional principle: bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses into churches outside their bounds, and provincial synods are to administer the affairs of their own regions. This is a conciliar and regional model of church order, not a universal papal administration. Constantinople I, canon 3 then gives Constantinople the prerogative of honor after Rome “because Constantinople is New Rome,” showing that ecclesiastical rank was being discussed in terms of honor and imperial-city status, not simply Petrine universal monarchy.

The dispute becomes even clearer at Chalcedon, canon 28. The council granted Constantinople privileges after Old Rome because it was New Rome. The reasoning was not that Constantinople had Petrine succession, but that its civil and imperial status gave it ecclesiastical prominence. The Roman legates objected, yet the council’s language shows that many Eastern bishops understood Rome’s ancient privileges in terms of order, honor, and imperial significance—not universal jurisdiction over all bishops.

Another important witness is Apostolic Canon 34, often cited in Orthodox ecclesiology. It says the bishops of each nation should recognize the one who is first among them and do nothing important without him, but also that the first should do nothing without the consent of all. This canon gives a model of primacy and conciliarity together: the first has real coordinating importance, but not unilateral domination.

Historical episodes also complicate the Roman Catholic claim. In the Apiarius case at the Council of Carthage in 419, African bishops challenged Roman appeal claims. The Roman side cited canons as Nicene, but the Africans discovered that the relevant appeal canons were actually from Sardica, not Nicaea. They asked Rome not to impose its authority “across the sea,” revealing that universal Roman appellate jurisdiction was not simply assumed everywhere in the early Church.

Likewise, Pope Gregory the Great criticized the title “universal bishop” when it was associated with the patriarch of Constantinople. Gregory warned against a bishop desiring to be named the “only bishop,” called the title proud, and argued that even Rome’s own bishops had not seized such a title despite its being offered to them. Roman Catholics may respond that Gregory was rejecting a title that would erase other bishops, not denying Roman primacy. That is a fair distinction. Still, from the Orthodox side, Gregory’s language is significant because it resists precisely the kind of ecclesial imagination in which one bishop’s title or jurisdiction diminishes the real episcopal authority of others.

The Orthodox position, then, is not “Rome never mattered.” That would be historically weak. Rome mattered greatly. Rome was honored. Rome was appealed to. Rome was a major apostolic see. But influence, honor, and appellate prestige are not the same thing as supreme, full, immediate, universal ordinary jurisdiction.

The deeper Orthodox argument is ecclesiological. The Church is not held together by one bishop’s universal administrative power, but by the one apostolic faith, the Eucharistic life of the Church, apostolic succession, synods, and communion among bishops. Bishops are not vicars of the pope; they are successors of the apostles entrusted with real pastoral authority in their local churches. Even Lumen Gentium acknowledges that bishops are not to be regarded merely as vicars of the Roman Pontiff, though it still places them under papal primacy.

Therefore, the central Orthodox-Catholic question remains this: did the early Church recognize Rome as a first see within a conciliar order, or did it recognize the bishop of Rome as a universal ruler with ordinary jurisdiction over every bishop and local church? Orthodoxy answers: primacy, yes; universal supremacy, no.