Second, what is the theological justification for having an EP?
Theological justification? All Bishops are "equal," but someone has to hold the presidency of a large Synod or liturgical gathering. Rome is no longer in communion with the East, thus the bishop who held the second place of honor according to canons from Ecumenical Councils and long-standing tradition fills the gap (See Canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council (eventually accepted as such by Rome) and Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council).
Third, why do the Eastern Orthodox not look to a petrine see as the first among equals such as Alexandria or Antioch?
Because after the First Ecumenical Council, no one in the Church did, including Rome. The Canons of the following Ecumenical Councils and the practice of the Universal Church recognized Constantinople as the second See of the Empire, despite the history and apostolicity of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch (which, of course, is older than Rome herself!). These things are obviously fluid, or Rome wouldn't have supplanted her Mother Churches.
Can you help me to understand the situation?
This is a complicated subject. Church governance is highly fluid within the first five centuries and not at all as clear as apologists of yore have made it seem. For example, even Leo Donald Davis (noted Roman Catholic historian of the Ecumenical Councils) admits that Ossius of Cordoba presided over the First Ecumenical Council. While he was from the West, he was not
a papal legate. He was, in the words of Jorg Ulrich, "the theological adviser and 'court bishop' of the emperor, and as such he had the chairmanship in the council and a hand in its proceedings and agenda." [Jorg Ulrich, "Nicaea and the West" Vigiliae Christianae
, Vol. 51., No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 10-24]. And, yet, how far did Ossius' perogatives extend? Well, the first to speak was an Eastern Bishop -- probably the Patriarch of Antioch, according to Davis. So, who's "in charge"? What does "being in charge" mean? Unfortunately, we don't have many records from the First Ecumenical Council. But we do have substantial records (including minutes) by the time of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. And who presides there? The imperial commissioners -- not even an imperially appointed bishop.
Some things to consider: As Francis Dvornik has written, even at the time of the New Testament, letters were addressed to the churches in the capitals of the provinces, and these "capital" churches were then charged with spreading the word to the rest of the province [Francis Dvornik (1966) Byzantium and the Roman Primacy
]. In other words, the Church (very naturally) mirrored the existing structure of the State. Thus, the pre-Imperial model of Church government was assuredly eparchial by the start of the fourth century, meaning that each eparchy (or region, as definited by the State) of the Empire had its own "Metropolitan Bishop" and possibly even a Synod (cf. Canon 4 of Nicaea I). It is not suprisingly that this form of Church government, since it is itself determined by the boundaries of the State, began to change with the Empire. In fact, we see within the canons of Nicea some indication that the "autocephaly" of each eparchial Metropolitanate was not entirely uniform: Canon 6 speaks of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome as having some sort of supra-metropolitan status because of "ancient custom." What exactly this ancient custom is -- if it comes from an ecclesial tradition, in that all three Sees are Apostolic, or if it comes from the fact that all three cities held long-time positions of importance in the diocesan structure of the Empire -- is not clear. Regardless, Canon 6 of Nicea goes on to emphasize that this "ancient custom" should not be seen as an infringement upon the continued validity of provincial independence elsewhere. Thus, Nicea leaves us with a somewhat confused picture of the Church, wherein it is not easy to determine with certainty exactly where ecclesial criteria end and Imperial influence begins.
In general, this trend is what Dvornik termed the principle of "accommodation" (vis-ÃƒÂ -vis that of apostolicity). Dvornik argues that the Church, from its earliest days, "conformed itself, for the organization of its ecclesiastical administration, to the political divisions of the Roman Empire.Ã¢â‚¬Â [Francis Dvornik (1966), p. 29.] This made sense for reasons of practicality, administration and efficiency. With the advent of a Christian State, however, this process of accommodation took on a new ethos and developed its own sort of theological justification. Furthermore, the creation of a new capital in Constantinople created a kind of magnificent anomaly in the Empire's civil administration: Byzantium had not even been the capital of its province, much less its diocese (a secular term, remember!), and so, under the principle of accommodation, its Bishop had been a suffragan to the See of Heraclea. Byzantium's new status as an Imperial city, however, obviously exempted it from such subordination in the civil realm, but what of its ecclesial status? Constantine could name a small town after himself and transform it into an Imperial city, but could he re-make the shape of the Church as well? It turns that he could not -- at least not overnight. The rise of Constantinople in both civil and ecclesiastical authority was a gradual process, a process that got its first major jumpstart at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381, especially from its third canon, the first official attempt to secure an ecclesiastical place worthy of the capital's bishop. We should not forget that it was Meletius of Antioch who presided at Constantinople I, that there were no Roman legates, and that only about 150 Bishops from Thrace, Asia Minor and Egypt were in attendance. [F. Dvornik (1966) Byzantium and the Roman Primacy
, pp. 44-45.] And, yet, both the Orthodox and Roman Churches now recognize the council as Ecumenical!
It is hardly surprising that at such a council we should find a canon that speaks about the presbeia
of Constantinople. Canon 3, as it has typically been translated, reads: "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the Primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome." [J. Stevenson (1978) Creeds, Councils and Controversies, p. 148.] However, as Peter L'Huillier has indicated, "Primacy of honour" is a rather inadequate translation of ta presbeia tis timis
, which actually means "the prerogatives of honor." [P. L'Huillier (1996) The Church of the Ancient Councils
, p. 122.] This error seems to date back to the earliest Latin translations of the canon Ã¢â‚¬â€œ a fact that may have influenced Rome's dislike for the canon, particularly after Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council). While the canons of Constantinople I do not explicitly establish a principle of "territorial accommodation," they are the first canons to employ the term "dioceses" and to adopt this secular
category for the Church (still in use today). In fact, the canons of Constantinople I go so far as to make sure that the ecclesial divisions of the Church accurately reflect the most current political events: Canon 2 mentions that Egypt should be considered a separate "synod" from the "East" Ã¢â‚¬â€œ even though Egypt had not been made into its own diocese until 380, only one year before the council. [A.H.M Jones (1964) The Later Roman Empire
, p. 46.]
Anyway, these are just some initial thoughts. Things are fluid in all periods of Church history -- and influenced by a variety of factors -- even in the modern period of the Roman Catholic Church. Fr. John Erikson, an Orthodox scholar, reminds us:
The good news from among Catholics is that developments in ecclesiology from Vatican II onward have helped to place the question of papal primacy in a new light. Particularly significant was the council's rediscovery of episcopacy as a true and proper order, "that by episcopal consecration is conferred the fullness of the sacrament of orders." [Lumen Gentium 21] In principle, therefore, it is now recognized that the jurisdiction of the bishops, and not just their "power of orders," is derived directly from Christ through sacramental ordination rather than by delegation from the Pope. Equally important was discovery of the collegial nature of the episcopate and the beginnings of a more satisfactory way of accounting for the pope's place within the episcopal college. Theologians like Rahner, Congar, McBrien, Semmelroth and others can argue that "there is only one subject of supreme authority in the Church: the episcopal college under papal leadership which can operate in two ways: through a strictly collegial act [e.g., a general council] or through a personal act of the pope as head of the college." [Patrick Granfield, The Limits of the Papacy (New York: Crossroads, 1990) 85.] Seen in this perspective, every primatial action in principle is collegial in nature. Primatial ministry in principle is situated within the episcopal college, not outside it or over it, and the exercise of this ministry must be evaluated accordingly.
Anyway, In case you haven't already seen these articles, you'll find much more information about this (especially what comes during the fifth century and on) here:The Origins and Authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church by Demetrios J. Constanteloshttp://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8148.aspConstantinople and Rome: A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches, by Milton V. Anastoshttp://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_6.html
Fourth, why does the Eastern Orthodox Church select an Eastern Orthodox Bishop of Rome?
There is no Eastern Orthodox Bishop of Rome, nor has there been one since the Schism. The first Eastern Orthodox Bishop to take up residence in Italy was elected a titular Bishop with a seat in Naples in November of 1970. He now has the title "Metropolitan of Italy" -- specifically NOT "Metropolitan of Rome."
That said, there are MANY Roman Catholics hierarchs who have been set up by the Vatican as competing Metropolitans and even Patriarchs of traditional Eastern Orthodox Sees, including the Roman Catholic Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, established by the Latin Crusaders; the various Melkite Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria -- not to mention the equally Catholic (yet somehow still distinct Catholic bishop of the same city), the Maronite Patriarch of Antioch, who has the title "Patriarch of Antioch and All the East." And one shouldn't forget the other Catholic Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, i.e. the COPTIC Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria and the Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, nor the Catholic Archbishop-Major of Kiev-Halych and All Rus, whom the Vatican has considered giving the title "Patriarch of All Rus." Astounding!
Phew! I'm getting a headache just trying to figure it all out.