Changes

From the time of the first [[Ecumenical council|Ecumenical Council]] on, Byzantine [[canon law]] had always assigned primacy of honor to Rome<ref>for example [[Council of Nicaea|Nicea]] canon 6</ref> The fathers attributed the prerogatives of primacy of leadership, honor and dignity to the the most ancient see of Rome because it was the imperial city. Even when the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople, the "new Rome," the priority of the "old Rome" was safeguarded. [[Constantinople I|Constantinople]] canon 3 states:  

From the time of the first [[Ecumenical council|Ecumenical Council]] on, Byzantine [[canon law]] had always assigned primacy of honor to Rome<ref>for example [[Council of Nicaea|Nicea]] canon 6</ref> The fathers attributed the prerogatives of primacy of leadership, honor and dignity to the the most ancient see of Rome because it was the imperial city. Even when the capital of the Empire was moved to Constantinople, the "new Rome," the priority of the "old Rome" was safeguarded. [[Constantinople I|Constantinople]] canon 3 states:  

:"As for the Bishop of Constantinople, let him have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city is the new Rome."  

:"As for the Bishop of Constantinople, let him have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city is the new Rome."  

To the Byzantine emperors of that period, both Zonaras and Balsamon firmly maintained that the expression "'''after''' the bishop of Rome" certainly shows hierarchical inferiority, not simply a subsequent, chronologically successive hierarchical superiority over Rome upon the establishment of Constantinople as the new capital city of the Empire.<ref>Even when Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor [[Alexis I|Alexis I Comnenus]] (1081–1118), tried to interpret "after" in a purely chronological sense, she was corrected by both Zonaras and Balsamon, who maintained that "after" certainly shows [[Hierarchy|hierarchical]] inferiority. —John Meyendorff, "The Council of 381 and the Primacy of Constantinople" in Catholicity and the Church (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1983), pp. 132-133. Also see L'Huillier, p. 373. See also [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexius-I-Comnenus Alexius I Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (britannica.com)]</ref> The ministry or [[See of Peter|Chair of Peter]] was universally understood in moral terms, rather than in terms of formal power, or rights. The actual exercise of this power depended upon political circumstances, as well as the orthodoxy, the wisdom, and the prestige of the "first bishop" himself as traditionally constituting the reliable standard of orthodox doctrine.<ref>Just as in the ''Acts of the Apostles'' dispute over doctrine was referred to the judgment of the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem. Acts 15:1-35. See again Apostolic Canon XXXIV (XXXV), above.</ref> Orthodox theologians have never rejected the concept of primacy, but, in response to the present Roman Catholic understanding of the primacy of the Petrine Office, reject only its increasing development as defined by the Church of Rome over the span of centuries. It was only when it became undeniably evident that the Patriarch of Rome decisively and consistently expressed the authority of the moral "privilege" of the Church of Rome (''auctoritas''<ref>'''Auctoritas'''

To the Byzantine emperors of that period, both Zonaras and Balsamon firmly maintained that the expression "'''after''' the bishop of Rome" certainly shows hierarchical inferiority, not simply a subsequent, chronologically successive hierarchical superiority over Rome upon the establishment of Constantinople as the new capital city of the Empire.<ref>Even when Anna Comnena, daughter of Emperor [[Alexis I|Alexis I Comnenus]] (1081–1118), tried to interpret "after" in a purely chronological sense, she was corrected by both Zonaras and Balsamon, who maintained that "after" certainly shows [[Hierarchy|hierarchical]] inferiority. —John Meyendorff, "The Council of 381 and the Primacy of Constantinople" in Catholicity and the Church (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1983), pp. 132-133. Also see L'Huillier, p. 373. See also [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexius-I-Comnenus Alexius I Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (britannica.com)]</ref> The ministry or [[See of Peter|Chair of Peter]] was universally understood in moral terms, rather than in terms of formal power, or rights. The actual exercise of this power depended upon political circumstances, as well as the orthodoxy, the wisdom, and the prestige of the "first bishop" himself as traditionally constituting the reliable standard of orthodox doctrine.<ref>Just as in the ''Acts of the Apostles'' dispute over doctrine was referred to the judgment of the apostles and the elders in Jerusalem. Acts 15:1-35. See Apostolic Canon XXXIV (XXXV), in [[Petrine Primacy#The Apostolic Canons]].</ref> Orthodox theologians have never rejected the concept of primacy, but, in response to the present Roman Catholic understanding of the primacy of the Petrine Office, reject only its increasing development as defined by the Church of Rome over the span of centuries. It was only when it became undeniably evident that the Patriarch of Rome decisively and consistently expressed the authority of the moral "privilege" of the Church of Rome (''auctoritas''<ref>'''Auctoritas'''

*[http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Auctoritas Auctoritas (novaroma.org)]

*[http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Auctoritas Auctoritas (novaroma.org)]

*[https://glosbe.com/la/en/auctoritas Auctoritas in English - Glosbe (glosbe.com)]

*[https://glosbe.com/la/en/auctoritas Auctoritas in English - Glosbe (glosbe.com)]