5.

 What position did the pope of Rome formerly hold in the Church?

            First, it is to be noted that the textbook for this course is somewhat of a mixed bag. While it may be the best introduction to Orthodoxy currently available in English, it is written by an author whose background is Anglican rather than Orthodox, and as a result, many serious theological errors find their way into the book. Among these errors is the author's completely un-Orthodox view of the papacy and his appalling and clearly misleading statement that the “Orthodox believe that among the five patriarchs, a special place belongs to the pope.” Commenting on this completely false assertion, Fr. Patapios asks:

Do we believe this now? Except for some fanatical ecumenists, most certainly not. What [the author] should have said is that in the first millennium, the East was prepared to accord some kind of supremacy of honor, as he himself concedes later in the same paragraph, to the patriarch of Rome — though not exclusively so, given the position of honor also accorded to Constantinople and the Mother Church of Jerusalem. Whatever this primacy may have been in the minds of the ancient bishops, it is now a dead letter; so, indeed, is Rome's very claim to Apostolic Succession. [The textbook] also suggests that we, as Orthodox, grant that “the holy and Apostolic see of Rome... [has]... the right (under certain conditions) to hear appeals from all parts of Christendom.” When it was still Orthodox in its confession of the faith, the Roman papacy may have played some such role. However, since it lapsed into heresy, this limited spiritual prerogative — whatever it may have been — has become utterly null and void [Ibid., pp. 6-7].

Orthodoxy has always believed in the equality of all bishops as regards grace and divine right, no matter how humble or exalted the city over which he presides. Orthodoxy distinguishes between bishops only as regards honor. Although all bishops (including patriarchs) are equal in the Orthodox Church, they do have different administrative duties and honors that accrue to their rank.

            Prior to 1054, when Latin Christianity was still in communion with Eastern Christianity, the bishop of Rome, or pope (meaning father), was regarded as primus inter pares (the first among equals) among the other bishops. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 accorded the bishop of Rome this distinction not because Rome had been the seat of the Apostle Peter, but “on account of her being the imperial city” [Canon 28]. If the position of honor accorded to the pope was determined not by the political but by the religious significance of the city, the primacy of honor would be reserved for Jerusalem, the Mother Church of Christendom. There would be no dispute in this matter, for Christ lived in Jerusalem, was crucified there and arose from the dead there. Thus, the first among equals position was not a supremacy, but was instead a preeminence of honor. This primacy of honor was largely of symbolic value. It meant that in ecumenical gatherings, the bishop of Rome could, if he wished, preside over the meetings and hold center place, inasmuch as the highest ranking bishop would preside in Councils but would not impose authority. However, the popes were seldom present at the Ecumenical Councils, and no pope ever presided over one of them. Moreover, the Ecumenical Councils themselves never imagined that the legitimacy of their decisions was to be determined by papal review and approval. There is simply no historical date to support such a view.

            Of further note, the prerogative of being first among equals was also given to the bishop of Constantinople when that city became the capital of the Roman Empire. This honor was bestowed by Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon. Moreover, as the writer Michael Whelton explains, in no place is any hint ever given in any canon or by any of the Fathers that the bishop of Rome has ever been the prince of the Universal Church, or an infallible judge of other bishops of the other independent and self-governing Churches, or the successor of the Apostle Peter and the vicar of Christ on earth. The same former Roman Catholic notes that the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils called for an equilibrium found in Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons. These canons date from the first half of the fourth century and mirror the practices of the Pre-Nicaean Church. These canons were translated into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus in the late fifth century and were widely accepted in the West. In them, the 34th Canon states that “... neither let him who is the first do anything without the consent of all.” Thus, it was entirely clear that no bishop could claim universal jurisdiction since he could do nothing without the consent of all.

            Also of note, every self-governing Church, both in the East and West, was completely independent and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Just as in the East, the bishops of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain and elsewhere managed the affairs of their own Churches through their local councils. The bishop of Rome had no right to interfere with these Churches, and he also was equally subject and obedient to the decrees of the councils. Also, on important questions that required the sanction of the Universal Church, an appeal was made not to the bishop of Rome, but to an Ecumenical Council, which alone was (and is) the supreme tribunal in the Universal Church. Such was the ancient constitution of the Church. The bishops were independent of one another, they obeyed only the decrees of the councils, and they sat as equal to one another in the councils. Also, none of the bishops laid claim to monarchical rights over the Universal Church. On those occasions when certain ambitions bishops of Rome raised excessive claims to an absolutism not recognized in the Church, they were duly reproved and rebuked.

            In short, the bishop of Rome was never accorded any rights or powers over the entire Church. As patriarch of the West, he had no more authority than that granted to any of the patriarchs in the East.

            The Roman Catholic history of the Church is utterly artificial, ignoring as it does more than half of the Christian world, the Christian East, from which Western Christianity ultimately derives. Contrary to the Latin Church's assertion, the spiritual center of Christianity was not Rome. In the earliest extant copies of the Liturgy, it is written that: “We make offering for Zion [Jerusalem], the mother of all Churches.” Likewise, the Second Ecumenical Council proclaims that “Jerusalem is the mother of all Churches.” As for Rome's argument that the Christian Church in Rome held an actual primacy in the Church, rather than a primacy of honor, such a notion would have struck the primitive Church as absurd.

            Furthermore, to trace that primacy to the Apostle Peter would not have seemed sensible to the early Church. Had any kind of personal primacy — aside from that of Christ — existed in the Church, it would have belonged to St. James, the bishop of Jerusalem.

            Roman Catholics and Orthodox both believe that St. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, but only Rome teaches that St. Peter presided over the Council of Jerusalem as a pope. However, the facts of Scripture (Acts 15) clearly refute this idea. Although Peter spoke at the Council, James disagreed with Peter, and it was James who summed up the decisions and decided the issue of the catholicity of the Christian message. James was the center of the Apostolic Council and was its voice, and it was to James' voice that Peter submitted. There is no indication in Acts 15 that Peter in any way presided over the Council. If Roman Catholics would read the book of Acts, they would see for themselves that the Council of Jerusalem was not presided over by St. Peter.

            In addition, the Apostle Peter himself never asserted any sort of supremacy over the other Apostles. While Peter was the first to receive the power to bind and to loose, this power was subsequently given to all the Apostles (vide Mt 16:16-19 and Mt 18:18).

            Had any bishops dared to arrogate to themselves a supremacy of power over the other bishops, the bishops of Antioch would have had all the more reasonable claim than Rome of being the see of Peter inasmuch as the Apostle Peter founded the Church of Antioch and was its first bishop before he ever went to Rome. Moreover, in addition to Antioch, a sizeable number of Churches trace their foundation to the Apostle Peter: Alexandria, Caesarea in Palestine, Tripoli and Corinth. If one were to suppose that the Roman Catholics had correctly interpreted Mt 16:18-19, and that primacy had actually been given to Peter and his supposed successors, the bishops of Rome, then Rome's primacy does not from it since the bishops from all the above Churches founded by Peter would have to lay claim for primacy for themselves, as successors of the “chief” Apostle. In such a case, the dogma of primacy would be reduced to absurdity. As it was, however, these other Churches founded by Peter did not fall into Rome's deception, for the teaching of primacy was unknown to the Church.

            In the sixth century, Pope Gregory I the Great (+604), misunderstanding the authority assumed by the bishop of New Rome (Constantinople), wrote some terse words to the latter, warning that he should not misinterpret or overstate the primacy of honor due to him as bishop of New Rome. Pope Gregory clearly points out that actual authority in the Church is shared by all the bishops equally [Papal Letters, Book 5, Letter 20]. This same pope pronounced any “universal bishop” to be “the forerunner of the antichrist.”

            Pope Gregory's letter stands as the clearest possible witness against a primacy in the Roman pontiff, and it clearly shows that the idea of papal supremacy represents a deviation on Rome's part from the correct understanding of the authority of bishops — an understanding that Rome itself had earlier adhered to. St. Gregory's opposition to papal authority is well documented, and his letters are available to anyone who wishes to read them. In these letters, there is striking evidence that even in Rome, the right to claim a primacy over the Church was not recognized.

            St. Gregory's correct understanding is from a bishop of Rome, no less, and one regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as a very eminent pope and a great saint. Needless to say, the Latin Church makes certain to conceal Pope Gregory's letter from its flock.

            Another guarded secret of the Latin Church is that early popes condemned the title Supreme Bishop of the Universal Church as blasphemous, as a “snare of Satan,” and as an “imitation of the devil.” However, this very title is now the chief title of the Roman Catholic popes.

            The falsehood of supremacy of external power and jurisdiction was unheard-of in the undivided Christian Church until Rome began to assert it beginning in the ninth century. It was the Carolingians that initiated papal claims to tremendous worldly power at that time, although the papacy itself never dogmatized these claims in the form of papal infallibility until the year 1870. (As noted in the introduction, for almost nineteen centuries, papal infallibility was denied by popes and faithful laymen). Concerning these false claims, St. John of Kronstadt stated that:

The cause of all the errors of the Roman Catholic Church is pride, and belief that the pope is the real head of the Church, and what is more, that he is infallible.

The Protestant Reformer John Wycliffe noted the same:

The pride of the pope is why the Greeks are divided from the so-called faithful. It is we Westerners, who are too fanatical by far, who have been divided from the faithful Greeks and the faith of our Lord Jesus.

Writing of the Latin Church's departure from the ancient Apostolic Church of Christ, one writer explains that:

When Cardinal Humbert walked out of Saint Sophia [in Constantinople] in 1054, having put the pope's bull of excommunication on the altar, he left as an ordinary layman, since he (and his superior in Rome, and all who remained in communion with him) ceased being in open, formal communion with the rest of the Christian Church which continued holding Apostolic doctrine and polity. All who joined themselves with that group of men who left voluntarily the unity of the continuing Church have remained apostates and schismatics ever since, no matter how vast, wealthy and vociferous they may be in claiming otherwise.

Whoever either voluntarily sets himself apart from the continuing unity of the undivided Church founded by Christ, or who alters the teachings defined by that Church, ceases to be a member of it. Orthodoxy alone has remained unchanged through the centuries, both in her doctrine and in her organization; all other groups, however huge or widespread, and however they may choose to style themselves, are not Orthodox, not in membership with that One Church founded by Christ [Abbot Augustine Whitfield, “Valid Orders,” Orthodox America, March 1989, p. 16; emphasis added].

            Commenting further on Rome's fall and its pope (whom he calls the man-god and idol of Western humanism), St. Justin (Popovich) of Chelije states that:

In the history of mankind there are three falls, the fall of Adam, of Judas Iscariot, and that of the pope. The essence of falling into sin is always the same: the desire to become God by oneself. In this manner, a man insensibly equates himself with the devil, because he also wants to become God by himself to replace God with himself.... The fall of the pope lies exactly in this very thing: to want to replace the God-Man [Christ] with the man.

As of Rome's infinitely tragic departure from Christ's Church in 1054, the unity of the Church did not cease at that time, nor did Orthodoxy and Rome become separate branches of the Church. The Church, being one, continued in ancient Orthodoxy. As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains:

The Church does not lose its unity because side by side with the Church there exist Christian societies which do not belong to it. These societies are not in the Church, they are outside it [Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 235].

Abbot Augustine explains that once the Latin Church severed itself from the Eastern Church, the post-schism popes invented new and unscriptural ecclesiologies that sought to justify their separation. These ecclesiologies claimed that Rome's bishops somehow “kept their orders” and “could perform valid Sacraments.” Deviating from what the Church has always held, the Latin Church came to maintain that sacramental authority resides in the person of the clergyman because of his ordination. Thus, if that individual secedes from the Church, he can continue to liturgise and ordain others (although he will sin in doing so), and his Sacraments will be valid but irregular.

            Rome's newly invented false teaching in this regard became the rationale for thousands of independent bodies that claim to have Apostolic Succession and Sacraments, but which have lost what is essential to them both — the characteristic of Church unity as understood by the Holy Fathers. The Fathers teach that the grace of the Mysteries (Sacraments), given by God, resides in the Church. This grace is poured out upon Christians through the clergy ordained for this purpose. This mysterious power does not reside in the individual men who celebrate the Mysteries, but it belongs in the body of the Church, from whom the bishops and clergy receive their authority. If any clergyman separates himself from the Church, either because of teaching falsely (heresy), or by seceding from the unity of the Church (schism), any “Mysteries” he performs are totally invalid and void, as “he has become a layman” (St. Basil). Thus, after the Latin Church left Christ's Church in the Great Schism, it had neither bishops, nor orders, nor Sacraments, nor the grace of the Holy Spirit.

            As a result of being cut off from the Holy Spirit, Rome was no longer in a position to withstand false teachings that arose, and these in turn became dogmatized (a matter that will be explored in chapter six). One such false dogma, that of papal infallibility, is explained by Protopriest Victor Potapov. He writes that:

The teaching on the infallibility of the pope, which was completely unknown to the ancient, undivided Church, appeared in the Middle Ages, just like the teaching on the supremacy of the pope; but for a long time it met opposition on the part of the more enlightened, honest and independent members of the Catholic Church. Only in the year 1870, at the First Vatican Council, did Pope Pius IX succeed in turning this teaching into a dogma, in spite of the protest of many Catholics, who even preferred to leave this Church and found their own community [of the Old Catholics] rather than to accept so absurd a dogma. By virtue of the definition of the Vatican Council, the pope is infallible when he, as the pastor and teacher of all Christians, defines or proclaims the truths of the faith ex cathedra, that is, officially, as the head of the Church. The nebulous expression ex cathedra is not understood in the same way by all Catholic theologians; but, no matter how one understands it, the Catholic dogma contradicts the whole spirit of Christ's teaching, which rejects the possibility for an individual man to be infallible, no matter what position he might occupy.

The dogma of the infallibility of the pope contradicts the whole history of the Church and of the papacy itself. History provides a whole series of indisputable facts concerning the errors of popes in questions of dogma and the contradictions of popes among themselves in matters of faith. For example, Pope Sixtus V, in concert with the bishops, issued a Latin translation of the Bible corrected by him and, under threat of anathema, required it to be accepted as the most authentic. There proved to be major mistakes in this translation, and subsequent popes withdrew it from church use. Which of the popes was infallible, Sixtus or his successor? Pope Leo III not only refused to insert the filioque, the addition “and from the Son,” into the Symbol of Faith, but even commanded that the intact Symbol be engraved on tablets and set up in the Church. Within two hundred years, Pope Benedict VIII inserted this addition into the Symbol of Faith. Which of them was infallible? Out of the numerous instances of the errors in dogma of the Roman bishops, it is sufficient to mention Pope Honorius (625-38), who fell into the Monothelite heresy and was excommunicated from the Church by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. At this Council, the delegates of the Roman bishop, Agatho, also were present and signed its decisions [Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy; emphasis added].

            It may come as a surprise to some Catholics that before Rome's definition of papal infallibility as dogma in 1870, the most illustrious and best-educated bishops of the Latin Church, and many of its most respected historians, roundly denounced the teaching as untenable. When Pius IX sought the mantle of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council, one of the Catholic bishops, Bishop Strossmayer, rose and addressed the council with these words:

I do not find one single chapter, or one little verse [of Scripture], in which Jesus Christ gives to St. Peter the mastery over the Apostles, his fellow-workers.... The Apostle Peter makes no mention of the primacy of Peter in any of his letters directed to the various Churches.... What has surprised me the most, and what moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence of St. Peter himself! Amidst jeers, Bishop Strossmayer continued:

The Councils of the first four centuries, while they recognized the high position which the bishop of Rome occupied in the Church on account of Rome, only accorded to him a preeminence of honor, never of power and jurisdiction. In the passage thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, the Holy Fathers never understood that the Church was built on Peter (super Petrum), but on the rock (super petram) of the Apostle's confession of faith (in the Divinity of Christ) [Quoted in Archpriest Alexey Young, Christianity or the Papacy?, pp. 8-9; emphasis added].

Bishop Strossmayer's words here are identical to the pre-schism teaching of the Church of Christ, both East and West. While the Roman Catholic Church eventually departed from that ancient understanding, Eastern Orthodoxy did not.

            Regarding the loss of grace of the Holy Spirit from the Latin Church after its apostasy and schism, the following papal pronouncements-all diabolical in nature — clearly demonstrate what kind of spirit possessed the post-schism popes who uttered them:

The entire world knows how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us and ours —Pope Leo X (1513-1521).

We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty — Pope Leo XIII, from his 1894 encyclical.

The pope is not only representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh. Does the pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Himself who speaks — Pope Pius X.

You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on earth — Pope Pius XI.

Adding to these deranged blasphemies, two Roman Catholic theologians have declared that:

The pope can do all things God can do — Nicholas de Tudeschis, in Commentaria (lvi, 34).

To make war against the pope is to make war against God, seeing that the pope is God and God is the pope — Moreri.

Until the ritual was terminated by Pope John Paul I, when the triple crown was placed on the head of a new pope at his coronation, the officiating cardinal proclaimed:

Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World: the Vicar of our Savior Jesus Christ... (Even though the ritual was changed, these words still remain).

The popes' love of power exceeded every limit, something shown in the proclamations of power claimed for themselves by these one-man “infallible” dictators over the Church and would-be tyrants of the world. Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), for example, proudly insisted, “I am Caesar, I am emperor.” Prior to Vatican I devotion, the Roman Breviary ascribed various titles to the popes, and these included: King of Kings and Supreme Ruler of the World. Other appellations include Vice-God of Humanity, Exalted King of the Universe, and Imperator Totius Mundi (Emperor of the Entire World). (Although this last title is no longer used, the pope remains a king, with a prime minister, ministers and ambassadors [nuncios]. Likewise, the papacy remains a worldwide center of power, which it employs only in the service of its own interests, like any other political or temporal power).

            If more examples of this mindlessness are needed, the Vatican newspaper La Civilta Cattolica (a Jesuit intellectual journal, every issue of which has to be cleared by the Vatican Secretary of State before publication) recorded that the pope is the “mind of God” and stated that “when the pope meditates, it is God Who thinks in him.” Likewise, the celebrated New York Catechism clearly states that:

The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth... the Arbiter of the World, the Supreme Judge of Heaven and Earth, the Judge of All, being judged by no one, God Himself on Earth [Exact words].

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not afford the Roman Catholic popes any primacy, for Orthodoxy has never numbered heretical bishops with Orthodox bishops. Orthodoxy does not even regard the pope as the bishop of Rome inasmuch as Rome no longer had true bishops as of 1054, when Apostolic Succession was severed in the West.