“There must be a visible head to the Church, or everything will spin out of control. There will be no agreement on faith or morals. That is why Jesus installed St. Peter as the supreme head of the Church, and each Pope since then has inherited his authority to govern. Submit to Rome!”
As an Orthodox Christian with an online presence (thanks to writing for this blog), I get multiple versions of that message every single week from Roman Catholics. Even Roman Catholics who are bitter opponents of Pope Francis, often still tell us Orthodox to, “Submit to Rome!” Sedevacantists, who believe that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958, also tell us to submit to Rome. Not current Rome, mind you, as that is full of heretics. But to the historic Roman Papacy and Roman Tradition. Whatever that means and however one goes about doing that.
And round and round it goes.
According to most proponents of the Roman Catholic concepts of Papal Supremacy and infallibility, both doctrines were known and followed in the Church of the 1st Millennium. One thing is certainly clear, many Roman Popes in the 1st Millennium did have a high opinion of the inherent authority of their office. The question is, however, did the rest of the Church in the 1st Millennium share that opinion?
Why does it matter how the Church outside Rome viewed the Papacy? Because to be part of the Catholic Faith, as articulated by St. Vincent of Lérins in the 5th Century, “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”
Was the unchallenged authority and infallibility of the Roman Papacy “believed everywhere, always, by all” in the 1st Millennium? Let’s look at that question across several different areas: the relationship of the Papacy to Ecumenical Councils, the historical excommunication / deposition of Popes, and a brief examination of the record of the Papacy in maintaining Church unity.
Ecumenical Councils
According to Vatican I, the Pope has supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, including supreme teaching powers that are preserved free from error.
Below is a short summary on Papal authority as articulated by Vatican I in the 19th Century:
The statement on the pope’s authority was approved only after long and heated debate both preceding and during the council. The decree states that the true successor of St. Peter has full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church; that he has the right of free communication with the pastors of the whole church and with their flocks; and that his primacy includes the supreme teaching power to which Jesus Christ added the prerogative of papal infallibility, whereby the pope is preserved free from error when he teaches definitively that a doctrine concerning faith or morals is to be believed by the whole church.
Many Roman Catholic apologists assert that Vatican I did not formulate anything new, but only articulated what had always been believed. That includes supremacy over Church Councils, even over the “Ecumenical Councils” of the 1st Millennium.
Below is a Roman Catholic perspective on the relationship between Ecumenical Councils and the Papacy:
A council in opposition to the pope is not representative of the whole Church, for it neither represents the pope who opposes it, nor the absent bishops, who cannot act beyond the limits of their dioceses except through the pope. A council not only acting independently of the Vicar of Christ, but sitting in judgment over him, is unthinkable in the constitution of the Church.
In normal times, when according to the Divine constitution of the Church, the pope rules in the fullness of his power, the function of councils is to support and strengthen his rule on occasions of extraordinary difficulties arising from heresies schisms, relaxed discipline, or external foes. General councils have no part in the ordinary normal government of the Church.
As a matter of fact, the older councils, especially those of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), were not convened to decide on questions of faith still open, but to give additional weight to, and secure the execution of, papal decisions previously issued and regarded as fully authoritative.
A Pope “ruling in the fullness of his power” is above any council, whose job is to support what the Pope says. Another way this absolute power is described is in Roman Canon Law 1404, “The First See is judged by none (Latin: Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur)”. In other words, there is no court or tribunal above the Pope than can condemn him, depose him, or annul his decrees.
Sentiments along the above lines were certainly expounded by Popes in the 9th Century, with similar sentiments having been written by earlier Popes. But did the rest of the Church believe this in the 1st Millennium?
To examine that, let’s go back to the 5th Century, and look at the situation with the so-called “Robber Council” of Ephesus and the subsequent Council of Chalcedon. As we do, please bear in mind the quote above, from a Roman Catholic perspective, that Chalcedon was not called to decide any open question of Christian Faith, but merely to, “give additional weight to, and secure the execution of, papal decisions previously issued and regarded as fully authoritative.”
If that were true, then you would expect to find a Council of Chalcedon that merely accepted the Pope’s teaching on Christology and then called it a day. In truth, that is exactly the sequence of events one finds in the sort of “standard narrative” of Chalcedon put forward by Roman Catholic apologists. According to the Romane Catholic party line, Pope Leo rejected the 449 AD Second Council of Ephesus calling it a “robber council”. As a result, the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD was called to finally settle the ongoing disputes over the nature / natures and personhood of Christ. At Chalcedon in 451 AD, the Tome of Leo essentially ended all debate, as it was an authoritative pronouncement of Pope Leo. The so-called tome was a letter written by Pope Leo I to Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 449 AD. The letter was a response to the heresy of Eutyches (a major subject of discussion at 2nd Ephesus) and that of Nestorius. The letter expounded Pope Leo’s doctrinal explanation of the natures of Christ. When it was read at Chalcedon, shouts went up from the bishops, “It is Peter who says this through Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo and Cyril teach the same thing.”
For many Roman Catholic apologists, the rejection of Ephesus, convening of Chalcedon, and the acceptance of the Tome of Leo prove that the supreme authority and infallibility of the Papacy were well-established facts in the 5th Century.
But is that really true?
The Second Council of Ephesus was convened by Roman Emperor Theodosius II (ruling from Constantinople) in 449 AD. It was convened with the agreement of Pope Leo, but as were all Ecumenical Councils of the 1st Millennium, 2nd Ephesus was an imperial affair and not a Papal one. The council was under the control of Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria, who ignored the Roman legates present as representatives of Pope Leo, and did not read the letter from Leo to Flavian (the tome) that would eventually play such an important role in the story of Chalcedon.
Evidently, an Orthodox Christian Patriarch in the 5th Century AD did not realize that his only role at a council was to support, and transmit, whatever he received from Rome. Instead, he stubbornly insisted on thinking for himself, and felt that he was well within his rights to ignore the opinions of Pope Leo on the questions at hand.
It is true that Pope Leo, upon learning of the actions of the council, condemned it. Pope Leo called it the Latrocinium (Robber Council). This next fact is really important, however. Emperor Theodosis II completely ignored the position of Pope Leo concerning 2nd Ephesus.
An Orthodox Catholic Roman Emperor was apparently unaware that his council needed the approval of the Roman Pope. Leo’s opposition to 2nd Ephesus was, in fact, ignored until after Theodosius died in a horse accident on July 28, 450 AD. His death changed the situation radically. Theodosius’ sister, Pulcheria, returned to imperial power and married the general Marcian, who became the new emperor. The imperial couple opposed both the teachings of Dioscurus and Archimandrite Eutyches.
To clarify the Orthodox Faith and end the disputes, Marcian called for a new council which was held in 451 AD in Chalcedon. Note that the council was called by the Emperor, and not by the Roman Pope. At this time in history, the Roman Pope could not convene a general council of the whole Church.
Note also that the council was called because the imperial couple, Marcian and Pulcheria, rejected the teachings of Dioscurus and Eutyches, and not because Pope Leo had rejected 2nd Ephesus.
In a curious incident, Pope Leo and his legates to Chalcedon demanded that Theodoret of Cyrus, an influential theologian of the School of Antioch and a Christian bishop, be seated at the council. Theodoret had been condemned as a heretic at 2nd Ephesus. His heretical Christology was especially clear in his attacks against St. Cyril’s Twelve Chapters. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon completely ignored Leo’s opinions on the matter, and refused to seat Theodoret as he was still under the condemnation of 2nd Ephesus. Theodoret was allowed to sit only as an accuser of Dioscorus. The Council only lifted Theodoret’s excommunication when he anathematized Nestorius, and accepted both the Third Ecumenical Council and the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril.
In the matter of Theodoret, we see a Roman Pope supporting a condemned, unrepentant heretic. Further, we see that the support of the Roman Pope Leo for Theodoret carried no weight at all with the Fathers of Chalcedon.
Eventually the Tome of Leo was read at the Council, as noted above, and a great cry did go up. Let us remind ourselves what that outcry was, “It is Peter who says this through Leo. This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo and Cyril teach the same thing.”
Wait a second. Leo was the infallible Pope. The supreme head of the entire Church, if one believes in the veracity of the Roman Catholic position concerning the Papacy at this time. Yet, his letter had not been read at 2nd Ephesus. Evidently, Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria didn’t get the memo that he was supposed to do whatever the Pope of Rome had instructed him to do. The tome was read at Chalcedon, and was generally applauded as an Orthodox Christological statement. However, not because it was written by the Roman Pope, the successor of Peter empowered to infallibly pronounce teaching binding on all Christians. Rather, it was judged Orthodox because the teaching therein agreed with the previously accepted work on the natures of Christ known as the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril.
The following is taken from an article by Fr. John Romanides:
Theologians of the Vatican have been supporting their position that Leo of Rome and his Tome became the basis of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of 451 which, according to them, supposedly corrected the monophysitic and theopassion tendencies of Cyril of Alexandria. But the reality of the matter was that some 50 bishops refused to sign Leo’s Tome claiming that it did not agree with the Synodical Letters of Cyril against Nestorius which were the basis of the decision of the Third Ecumenical Council in 431. They were given five days to examine the Tome of Leo with the said letters of Cyril. They all agreed that Leo indeed agrees with Cyril. Their statements to this effect are individually recorded in the minutes.
So Cyril and not Leo was the key to the Council of Chalcedon. Evidently the Vatican has been keeping this fact quiet since it makes a mockery of so-called Papal infallibility. Contrary to these minutes of Chalcedon are the scholars who claim that the Council of Chalcedon modified the Monophysitic tendencies of Cyril and supposedly de-emphasized the theopassianism of his Twelve Chapters. But Cyril’s Two Synodical Letters to Nestorius and his 433 letter to John of Antioch are included in the Horos of Chalcedon “to which have been adapted the Tome of Leo….”
St. Cyril had been the Patriarch of Alexandria, not the Roman Pope. Yet, the tome of the Roman Pope was judged against the standard of St. Cyril’s teaching, not the other way around. So much for the oft repeated Roman Catholic demand of, “submit to the Apostolic See, which cannot err.”
The Church Fathers gathered at Chalcedon were keenly looking for error in the Tome of Leo. In fact, 50 of the bishops present at Chalcedon did not at first agree with the tome, and so were given time to examine it. Evidently an entire of Council of Orthodox Bishops did not realize that, as Supreme Roman Pontiff, Pope Leo’s teaching was immune to their judgment. The truth of how the Tome of Leo was received and judged by Chalcedon is often obscured by Roman Catholic propaganda. In a different article, Fr. John Romanides expressed the shock he felt when he first discovered what really happened at Chalcedon:
This opened the way to the position that the Tome of Leo had supposedly become the standard of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. This was followed by the position that the Fifth Ecumenical Council returned to Cyril’s Twelve Chapters in order to please the Non-Chalcedonians. Having studied at Yale University under specialist in the History of Dogma, one may appreciate the shock this writer had, while preparing for Aarhus 1964, when he saw in the minute’s of Chalcedon the debate about whether the Tome or Leo agrees with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril. Hypatius’ claim that Chalcedon supposedly avoided the use of Cyril’s Twelve Chapters because it uses hypostasis as synonymous with physis, obliges one to realize that Chalcedon did no such thing, since Cyril became the judge of Leo’s Orthodoxy. So Chalcedon both accepted the Alexandrian tradition of terms, but also that of Rome, Cappadocia and Antioch.
In the end, Chalcedon accepted the Tome of Leo, definitively declared that Jesus Christ has two natures, divine and human, in one person (Hypostatic Union), and deposed Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria. The “Vicar of Christ” and the Emperor both put their seals of approval on the work at Chalcedon. So that was that, right? Done deal, on to the next controversy?
Not hardly. The Theological debate after Chalcedon was even worse than the one leading up to it. Surprisingly, those who rejected Chalcedon continued to play a significant, sometimes even dominant, role in the 5th Century Orthodox Church (which included both East and West at the time). This is a fact that is often lost in the “official Roman Catholic narrative”.
The following is from an article titled After Chalcedon – Orthodoxy in the 5th/6th Centuries:
It seems to be received as an historical fact that after the Council of Chalcedon those Christians who refused to accept its decisions and doctrinal statements were immediately isolated and rapidly withdrew into their own communion. This opinion is far from reflecting historical reality, and yet it is often presumed to be true by Oriental Orthodox as much as Chalcedonian Orthodox.
It fails to take full account of the truth that for a Council to be Ecumenical it must be received by the whole Church, and ignores the reality that large numbers of Orthodox Christians rejected it, and continued to oppose it. This opinion assumes that because one group of Orthodox defined the Faith in a particular way any who disagreed with that definition must of necessity have separated themselves from the Faith and therefore from the Church. Yet in the years after Chalcedon, and throughout the 6th century, those who rejected Chalcedon continued to play a significant, and at times dominant, role in the Orthodox Church.
There were three main factors complicating the theological debate that took place after Chalcedon. Rome had been lost to the barbarians, there was a growing sense of national identity in the various parts of the Empire, and the great Sees were continually in competition with each other. The Emperors had to balance the desire to regain Rome with the need to try and preserve unity within the Empire of the East. Theological divisions were no help and a uniform Christology was always one of the Emperors underlying ambitions. At times this meant that political policies impinged on theological and ecclesiastical affairs.
Thus Marcian supported Chalcedon and it must have appeared to him that there was the prospect of unity in the Church based on its Christological statement. But if that was indeed his opinion then he was quickly proved wrong. Pope St. Dioscorus may well have withstood his enemies alone, but the people of Alexandria were as staunch defenders of Cyrilline Orthodoxy as any of their bishops, and they were the first to make plain that the See of Alexandria was united in opposition to Chalcedon. When Proterius was appointed Patriarch in place of the exiled Pope Dioscorus he was greeted by a rioting crowd of Alexandrians. Opposition was not limited to Egypt. In Jerusalem the monks rejected Juvenal who had submitted to Chalcedon and appointed Theodosius in his place. The Emperor acted to replace Juvenal with another bishop who accepted Chalcedon but Theodosius had already consecrated several bishops who maintained opposition to Chalcedon.
The Papacy was simply in no position to “force” the whole Church to accept Chalcedon, as the vast majority of Christians did not even believe the Roman Pope had that kind of authority. Obviously, the Emperor was not in a position to dictate adherence to Chalcedon either. In the aftermath of Chalcedon, we see that even the common people of the Empire felt entitled to reject (sometimes violently) a council based on their own judgment, even if that ran contrary to both Roman Pope and Roman Emperor. The Roman Catholic idea that a council is judged solely by the Pope clearly did not exist in the 5th Century.
During the short reign of Emperor Basiliscus (October 475–June 477 AD) an encyclical was sent to all the bishops throughout the empire calling upon them to anathematize the Tome of Leo along with everything done at Chalcedon considered to be innovations beyond the Faith of the Council of Nicea. Over 500 bishops subscribed to this letter, including the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. The whole ecclesiastical situation had now changed. The Chalcedonians, including the Roman Pope, were on the defensive.
For the Chalcedonian side, things got worse. A council was called at Ephesus and a large number of bishops gathered under Patriarchs Timothy of Alexandria and Peter of Antioch to anathematize Chalcedon. When concluded, a letter was written to the Emperor which said:
“We have anathematized and do anathematize the Tome of Leo and the decrees of Chalcedon, which have been the cause of much blood shedding and confusion, and tumult, and division and strifes in all the world. For we are satisfied with the doctrine and faith of the Apostles and the holy Fathers, the Three Hundred and Eighteen; to which also the illustrious Council of the One Hundred and Fifty in the royal city, and the two other holy Synods at Ephesus adhered, and which they confirmed.”
The Roman Pope at the time, Simplicius, was fully in support of Chalcedon. It seems few in the wider Church cared about his opinion.
After recovering the throne and deposing Basiliscus, Emperor Zeno wanted a compromise that would heal the Christological divisions in the empire. The Chalcedonian Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, drew up a letter, called the Henoticon, addressed to “the bishops, clergy, monks and laity of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis”. The Henoticon was understood to be an imperial statement of faith which abrogated Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. Both Zeno and Patriarch Acacius no longer needed to placate Western opinion, as Rome was outside the empire after the establishment of a Vandal kingdom centered on Ravenna.
If the Roman Pope was really thought to be “supreme” over the Church at the time, then you would not expect the mere political facts on the ground to have had this kind of influence on the path chosen by Zeno and Acacius.
The text of the Henoticon does not use the phrase “two natures” and stresses the pre-eminence of the Nicene faith. It anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches and all who taught contrary to the teachings of Nicaea. The Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril were received as Orthodox. Christ’s Godhead and manhood were upheld. The teaching of St. Cyril was upheld that “both the miracles and the sufferings are those of one Person”, the Second Person of the Trinity who became Incarnate.
Pope Felix III of Rome condemned the Henoticon and excommunicated Patriarch Acacius in 484 AD, causing a schism between the East and West which would last 35 years.
Let’s pause a moment. This was the 5th Century, not the 11th, and at that early date, the vast majority of the Church clearly did not recognize the ability of the Pope in Rome to unilaterally dictate to them. Nor did they feel as if their salvation depended on being in communion with Rome, as most of the Church at the time was not. In the 5th Century, the vast majority of Orthodox Catholic Christians lived in the East and were out of communion with the Roman Pope during this 35 year time span. We can see that easily enough if you consider that, at the time, the population of Constantinople alone could have been as high as 1 million, while the population of Rome could have been as low as 25,000.
During the more than three-decades-long schism, the great Sees of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria were united and Emperor Zeno was praised as “the triumphant star of Christ from the East”. Even the more extreme opponents of Chalcedon accepted that the Henoticon contained a right confession of faith. It seemed that on this basis, perhaps at least the Eastern Church could be quieted, though Rome remained in schism.
So how did the Chalcedonian position end up becoming recognized as Orthodox truth? The Empire changed its policy and began persecuting non-Chalcedonians.
In 518 AD, Emperor Justin, a Chalcedonian, ascended to the throne. He demanded conformity in the Empire with Chalcedon. The Emperor also wanted a reunion with Rome. To effect the restoration of communion between East and West, Roman Pope Hormisdas wrote a theological formula and demanded that Justin, Patriarch of Constantinople John II, and all the Eastern bishops sign it. The acceptance of the Formula of Hormisdas by the Patriarch of Constantinople, and other Eastern Bishops, is often cited by Roman Catholic apologists as proof that the Orthodox Bishops and the Emperor accepted Papal Supremacy and infallibility in the 6th Century.
The facts suggest otherwise. The schism ended because a Chalcedonian Emperor wanted it ended badly enough to give Rome everything it had wanted for 35 years. It was imperial policy that changed, not the opinion of those within the Empire concerning the authority of the Roman Pope. This is especially obvious when you acknowledge that, despite imperial pressure, many bishops still resisted Chalcedon, often finding sanctuary in Egypt. The Pope had spoken, as had the Emperor, but resisting bishops, monks, and laity did not care.
To break resistance, imperial persecution was initiated and got progressively worse. By 525 AD, all resisting monks were driven out of their monasteries, robbed, put in irons and subjected to various tortures. Faithful Orthodox Christians who gave them shelter were treated in the same way. The wave of anti-Chalcedonian persecution caused the monasteries of Syria to break off communion with the Chalcedonian bishops. All of them signed an anathema against Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. In response, imperial soldiers were sent to expel the monks from their homes just two days before Christmas.
Under this severe persecution, the opponents of Chalcedon found themselves becoming a distinct Church from the Chalcedonian Church, though both sides still described themselves as Orthodox. A final break was avoided at that time, however, because by 534 AD the emperor had relaxed the persecution. For a short time, opponents of Chalcedon were allowed to occupy important positions, including as Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria.
Roman Catholic apologists usually leave all of the post Formula of Hormisdas messiness out of their narrative. They prefer to give the impression that everyone submitted to the Roman Pope, except for some ignorant Egyptian bishops. Case closed, problem solved. The facts radically contradict that simplistic narrative. Adherence to Chalcedon was brought about through imperial persecution, not by widespread submission to Papal Supremacy.
The final break between the opposing sides of Chalcedon occurred under Emperor Justinian. The Emperor was more interested in union with Rome and the West than in any kind of compromise with non-Chalcedonians. The Emperor deposed the non-Chalcedonian bishops, and restarted the general persecution of all resistors. Unfortunately for any future effort at unity, the non-Chalcedonian position increasingly became confused with national resistance to the Roman Empire. The result is still with us – the Orthodox Catholic Church on one side, the Oriental Orthodox Church on the other, with the Roman Catholic Church standing across the room all by herself.
Let us consider one more example of a council from a later time period before we close this topic. The Quinisext Council, also known as the Council of Trullo, was held between 691–692 AD in the East, without the presence of any representation of the Roman Pope. The immediate reaction of the See of Rome to the council was fiercely hostile. This was partly because two canons (13 and 55) explicitly criticized Roman practices such as mandatory clerical celibacy, but more generally because Rome resented being expected to retroactively approve a whole sheaf of new canons. Despite the wishes of Emperor Justinian, Pope Sergius I (687–701 AD) flatly refused to accept the council and the new canons. The East considered the council valid despite Rome’s rejection, and the Quinisext canons found their way into imperial canonical collections.
This was hundreds of years before the Great Schism. Yet even then, there were very clear differences between the Eastern and Western Churches. Despite modern claims of Papal Supremacy, Orthodox bishops in the 7th Century, just as in earlier centuries, were not unduly concerned with the opinions of the Roman Popes.
From our perspective as Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians, we owe a debt of gratitude to Rome for standing strong in favor of the true doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (Two Natures in One Person). Fortunately, Rome was a bastion of Orthodoxy for much of the 1st Millennium. That is a good lesson for Orthodox Catholic Christians to learn, especially at a time when extremely sharp criticism of anything “Western” is so common in our parishes.
On the other hand, we should also recognize that while Roman Popes maintained the true Chalcedonian Orthodox Faith, they were powerless to enforce that faith on the rest of the Church. That took imperial force, which was used to carry out a truly lamentable persecution of non-Chalcedonian clergy and laity alike. There is simply no reason to think, based on the facts, that the vast majority of Orthodox Christians in the 1st Millennium accepted Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility as dogmas of the Christian Faith. The power of the Papacy, as articulated by Vatican I, clearly was not believed “everywhere and by all” in the 1st Millennium.
[…] Reasons not to accept the theory of Roman Catholic papal supremacy, https://orthodoxreflections.com/were-the-roman-popes-supreme-in-the-first-millennium/ […]
Glory to god for all things!
As a former Roman Catholic, turned Uniate, and by God’ love and grace, found the Truth in Holy Orthodoxy…i know of what I speak. Like our father, St. Seraphim of Platina, ‘I can’t speak for the Church, but I can share what She has taught me over these past 24 years…
Let me begin with a “seeker of Ancient Christianity” our own Saint Seraphim Rose of Platina, let us hear his words:
Let us try to reason together, not in the manner of ‘Western academic and speculative scholasticism’, but as Orthodox Christians who love the Holy Fathers and wish to understand their teaching, and also as rational beings who do not accept the teaching of any modern “wise men,” whether they be theologians, philosophers or “expert” scholars – unless that teaching accords with the Scriptural and Patristic teaching and does not come from some foreign ideology, theology or philosophy.
When we examine the controversies with Rome in the lives of St. Photios the Great and St. Mark of Ephesus (in the ninth and fifteenth centuries respectively), we find clear repudiations of Rome for her heresies—so long as she holds to them—and in the latter case, a rejection of the possibility for union with her for that very reason. In the eyes of the Orthodox Church—who not only canonized these men, but deemed them ‘Pillars of Orthodoxy’—their teaching with respect to Rome was vindicated over against papism, filioquism, and ecumenism. St. Photios’ teaching against the Filioque and papal supremacy was formally affirmed by the Church at the ecumenical Council of Constantinople (A.D. 879–880), and St. Mark was vindicated and affirmed in the Church’s rejection of the false union of Basel-Ferrara-Florence. (See Evidence of the Ecumenical status of the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Synods from ‘The Ecumenical Synods’ attachment and the Document: The Encyclical Letter of 1848, in which the holy synods of the patriarchates refer to the 8th ecumenical synod very clearly, by its name. Indeed, those Councils were actually recognized as “Ecumenical, in the sense of their binding and infallible authority because of their charismatic character – under guidance of the Holy Spirit they have witnessed to the Truth in conformity with the Scripture as handed down in Apostolic Tradition.)
At this point, one might posit that much has changed since the fifteenth century, and heterodox bodies may have drawn more into conformity with Orthodox doctrine over the centuries, and therefore, such bodies ought to be closer to full Eucharistic communion. For this to be the case, there would have to be some dramatic movement—not in gesture or disposition, but in dogma and life—of Roman Catholicism towards Orthodoxy, at least since the time of St. Mark of Ephesus. But the notion that Rome has moved in this direction is untenable. If anything, she has moved further away in a number of important respects. The fact that the majority of RC dogma over the last two and a half centuries has originated and developed from Marian apparitions [demonic according to the Church and the Saints-Holy Fathers] confirms this ‘moving’ away from – and alteration of – decrees established within ecumenical, synodal councils, and the Fathers/saints’ teaching on accepting visions.
In an atmosphere that emphasizes Christian similarity (minimalism) over and above dissimilarity (maximalism), many Orthodox participants in the Ecumenical Movement have been reinforced for their Westernized views of the Church and have further moved away from strengthening their ties to its –Orthodox – authentically unique – life.
The Holy Fathers and Saints did not hold this modern view and heretical teaching; if you can show me that they did hold such an understanding and belief, I would be most interested to see it. However, the fact is, no holy Elder or Saint of the Church has ever – since then or now – called them anything but heretics –as long as they cling to their heresy; this innovative-renovated theology is at complete odds with the Ecumenical Synods, with all the Holy Fathers of the Church, as well as the whole history of the Church. The fact is, no holy Elder, Saint, or Council of the Church has ever – since then or now –referred to Roman Catholicism – or any heterodox – as anything but heretical. [see limited list at end]
His Eminence, Metropolitan Hierotheos [Vlakos] of Nafpaktos explains the Patristic understanding/teaching – and thus, the Church’s stance – on the connection between “Orthodoxy, the Church and the Divine Eucharist,” and consequently all of Her Mysteries:
There is a close relationship between Orthodoxy, the Church and the Divine Eucharist. Orthodoxy is the true faith of the Church and the Divine Eucharist is the true act of the Church. If there is a Church without Orthodoxy and the Eucharist, it is not a Church. If there is Orthodoxy outside the Church and the Divine Eucharist, it is not Orthodoxy. Moreover, if there is Divine Eucharist, without Orthodoxy and the Church, it is not the Divine Eucharist. This is why we maintain that outside the Orthodox Church there is no other Church, only heresies. Thus, the return of the heretics to the only true Church, the Orthodox Church, is needed. –Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, Entering the Orthodox Church: The Catechism and Baptism of Adults, pp. 138-139.
Combined, these sources of Holy Tradition give us a theologically consistent position regarding the “non-validity” of heterodox sacraments, particularly as derived from the Sacred Canons.
May God’s Will be done; may God give us wisdom!
Doxa to Theo, John
Apostolic Canons 46, 47, and 50 are the earliest written decrees, or pastoral guidelines, on the reception of converts:
The principal canonical basis for the non-recognition of heterodox sacraments is the 46th Apostolic Canon which declares: “We ordain that a bishop, priest, or deacon who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics be deposed.” These Apostolic Canons, confirmed by the VIth Ecumenical Council (in Trullo) in 692, comprise the foundation of Orthodox canon law. – Archimandrite Placide Deseille
Canon 46: We order that a bishop or presbyter that recognized the baptism or sacrifice of heretics be defrocked. For “what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15).
Canon 50: If a bishop or presbyter conduct an initiation [i.e. baptism] and perform not three immersions, but one immersion—that administered into the Lord’s death—let him be anathema.58
Canon 1 of the Synod of Carthage (c. 258), confirmed and upheld by the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, is another authoritative and representative expression of the Church’s position regarding the non-Orthodox. It is worth quoting at length, as it aptly summarizes the Orthodox view of heterodox sacraments:
While assembled in Council, beloved brethren, we read letters sent by you, concerning those among the heretics and schismatics presuming to be baptized who are coming over to the catholic Church which is one, in which we are baptized and regenerated. . . .Decreeing now also by vote what we firmly and securely hold for all time, we declare that no one can possibly be baptized outside the catholic Church, there being but one baptism, and this existing only in the catholic Church. . . .. . .the [baptismal] water must first be purified and sanctified by the priest, in order that it may be capable of washing away the sins of the person being baptized when he is there into immersed. And through the Prophet Ezekiel, the Lord says: “And I will sprinkle you with clean water, and cleanse you, and I will give you a new heart, and I will give you a new spirit” (Ezek. 36:25). But how can he who is himself unclean, and with whom there is no Holy Spirit, purify and sanctify water, with the Lord saying in the book of Numbers: “And everything the unclean man touches shall be unclean” (Num. 19:22)? How can he who was not able to rid himself of his own sins, being as he is outside the Church, baptize and grant remission of sins to another?. . . . Moreover, it is necessary that he who has been baptized be chrismated, so that receiving the chrism he become a partaker of Christ. But the heretic cannot sanctify oil, seeing that he has neither altar nor Church. It is not possible for there to exist any chrism whatsoever among the heretics. For it is obvious to us that oil can by no means be sanctified among them for such worthy use. And we ought to know and not ignore that it has been written: “Let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head,” which the Holy Spirit even long ago declared in the Psalms (140:6); lest anyone be tracked down and led astray from the right way and be chrismated by the heretics, the enemies of Christ.
After reiterating the point that that one who is outside the Church is deprived of all mysteriological Grace, the Synod concludes:
Baptism being one, and the Holy Spirit being one, there is also but one Church, founded upon (Peter the Apostle of old confessing) oneness by Christ our Lord. And for this reason, whatever is performed by them [i.e. the heretics] is reprobate, being as it is counterfeit and void. For nothing can be acceptable or desirable to God which is performed by them, whom the Lord in the Gospels calls His foes and enemies: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Mt.12:30). And the blessed Apostle John, in keeping with the Lord’s commands, wrote in his epistle: “You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and now many antichrists have appeared” (1 Jn. 2:18). Hence we know it is the last hour. They came out from among us, but they were not from among us. Therefore, we too ought to understand and consider that the enemies of the Lord, and the so-called antichrists, would not be able to gratify the Lord. And therefore, we who have the Lord with us, and who hold fast to the unity of the Lord, abundantly supplied as we are in proportion to His excellence, and exercising His priesthood in the Church: we ought to disapprove, and refuse, and reject, and consider profane everything done by those opposed to Him, i.e. His foes the antichrists. And we ought to impart in full the mystery of divine power, unity, faith and truth unto those who from error and perversity come to us for knowledge of the Church’s true faith. – Citations of Sacred Canons related to Holy Baptism are taken from I Confess One Baptism; see References.
Additional Canons could be cited, including the oft-debated Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Synod and the nearly identical Canon 95 of the Sixth. All of these Canons reflect the Church’s indisputable dogmatic boundaries which the Holy Spirit inspired the Fathers to delineate. These boundaries remain binding on the Church to this day. So the question is: “Do we follow our God-bearing Fathers or ourselves?”
The Fathers and Truth “It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism-the primacy of the Pope exhalting himself equal to God.” St. Mark the Evgenikos
“The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics…we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics. This is precisely why we must not unite with them unless they dismiss the addition from the Creed “filioque” and confess the Creed as we do.”
St. Mark the Evgenikos My brothers, I studied for forty and fifty years. I read many books about the Jews, the idolaters, and about the impious and heretics. I studied the depths of wisdom. All the other faiths are false and counterfeit. Only our own faith, the Orthodox Christianity, is True and Holy.
St. Kosmas the Aitolos Neither the Papist nor the Protestant church can be considered as the True church of Christ. The first was altered by a number of innovations and the accursed despotism (Primacy) due to which resulted the schism from the Orthodox. The same goes for the Protestants whose innumerable innovations lead to total anarchy and chaos. Only the Orthodox church maintained the teachings of Christ flawlessly without a single innovation. Only in the Orthodox church does unity exist. The unity which the Savior was petitioning from the Father saying, “Holy Father keep them in your Name those that you gave me so they can be one just like we were one.” (John 17:11…)
St. Nektarios of Aigina
“Those that are not reborn by the divine grace in the only ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, they do not consist of (comprise) any church, neither visible nor invisible.”
St. Nektarios “Through the dogma of “Infallibility” the Western church lost its spiritual freedom. It lost its beauty and balance, and was deprived of the wealth of the grace of the Holy Spirit, the presence of Christ- from spirit and soul ended up a dead body. We are truly grieved for the injustice done to the church and we pray from the bottom of our hearts that the Holy Spirit illumine the mind and the heart of the Most Blessed Pontiff to have him return to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH that which he took from her, something that should never have taken place.”
St. Nektarios The “Third Fall” “In the history of mankind there are 3 falls: The fall of Adam, of Judas the 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 with the man…”
Justin Popovich of Serbia Papacy is a heresy “The papacy is included among the heretical weeds forever appearing in the church of God which is very often plagued and continues to plague the salvation of mankind in Christ; in being bad seeds and rotten members they are justly cut off from the healthy body and the Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ.”
Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos 1895 “All those of you that are genuine children of Orthodoxy, leave as quick as possible from the priests who succumbed to Latin rule (Uniads), and neither congregate with them nor accept a blessing from their hands.”
St. Germanos of Constantinople “The Latins are unbaptized because they do not keep the three immersions while baptizing…let them learn that a baptism is not complete by petitioning the Holy Trinity only, but what is also needed is the likeness (typos) of the death, the burial and the resurrection of the Lord…for us to be participants in the likeness of the death of Christ and His three-day burial; it is imperative that the three immersions take place otherwise this is impossible…”
Saint Philotheos Zervakos writes (1923) My dear lady, It is an honor for me to write to you even though I do not know you personally and I hope you do not misunderstand my doing so because my action does not come from any other motive other than pure innocent Christian Love, from Christian brotherly duty and the commandment given from our Christ the Savior. Having arrived in Naxos a few days ago, I was informed that you are the assistant principle of the Academy and that you abandoned the Orthodox religion of our Fathers and have embraced that of the Latins (Roman Catholics). This made me grieve deeply and it continues to grieve me and rightly so, because I think of all people as my brothers. So when I see one of my brothers or sisters to suffer some physical injury or calamity I grieve; how much more must I grieve and weep when this calamity is spiritual…I’m not aware of the reasons which pushed you to deny Orthodoxy (which was founded by the Holy Fathers through the Seven Ecumenical Counsels, illumined by the Holy Spirit) and bow down to Papism which is a forerunner of the Antichrist because it was pride and arrogance that ruled over the Pope who desired to become the highest authority of the church and of the state. By this action, he tore apart the church of Christ accepting the addition to the Creed and going against the words of the Lord who told His disciples when He was about to be crucified, “The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father”(John 15:26-27).
Following this, the Pope worshippers fell into innumerable innovations (cacodoxies) and heresies, turning upside down all the sacraments of the Orthodox Church…You may tell me that we Orthodox have many faults, this I also confess and I preach that clergy and laity have lost their purpose in life but this is no reason for us to betray our religion because of the sins of others. Christ said that many are called but few are chosen and that the gate that leads to life is narrow and sorrowful and few will enter through it. The path to perdition is wide and spacious and many are walking through it…
The Romanian Fathers Archimandrite Cleopa Elie and Reverend Father Dimitri Staniloae are considered to be the flying eagles of Romanian Orthodox Spirituality. Decades of struggling, sacrifice and steadfast Love for the faith have produced thousands upon thousands of spiritual children in spite of the atheist and repressive regimes of their country. Their piety and that of the Romanian Orthodox in general compelled the visiting Patriarch of Jerusalem to say, “I’m sorry that I was not born in Romania!”
The following passages in matters of Love and Truth were translated from the book “Spiritual discussions with Romanian Fathers” written by hieromonk Ioannikios Balan. Their answers clearly demonstrate the universality which characterizes the Orthodox Church; these “passionless” Holy Fathers speak the truth of the gospel in a crisp and crystal clear tone in the absence of diplomacy and compromise.
Saint Cleopa: What should be the attitude of Orthodox Christians towards Christians of other confessions?
Towards other Christians, as long as they do not keep challenging us about the Truth of our faith we must behave with love and compassion, help them with their needs according to the example of the Good Samaritan given to us by our Savior Jesus Christ. (Luke 10:37, Matthew 7:12). However, if they are willing to challenge and provoke us about our holy faith or the Sacred Tradition of our Holy Church “we must defend it with all our might and we must fight until death” (Unseen Warfare, St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite).
True, we must love our neighbor but within bounds. Whereas, our love towards God should know no bounds. Let’s not think that it is right to love our neighbor while allowing the True Faith of Christ to be stepped upon from foreigners (Protestant and non-Orthodox missionaries to Romania) because they want to distance us from this faith and teach us their own which is crooked and heretical. Therefore, every Orthodox priest and every faithful member of our church must be a good soldier of Christ with all the piety and bravery and power of Godliness in order to project the truth of our Orthodox faith, if capable by his words or writings. He must not pretend to be meek in situations where there is no need for meekness because according to the prophet:“There the meek must become a warrior.”(Joel 4:11)
Poimen the Great teaches the same thing saying: “We must show perseverance for whatever temptation comes along whether they wish to pluck our eyes out or to cut our right hand. However, if someone wishes to distance us from our faith then let’s become idignant (Gerontikon). He also says,“the first time walk away, the second and third time fight against him who wants to separate you from the true faith.” Archimandrite Cleopa Elie
The Orthodox Romanian Theology has as its head for over 50 years the most prominent among her representatives teacher and most Reverend Father Dimitri Staniloe. His person is highly recognized in Romania and abroad as one of the greatest personalities of the Orthodox church today. An outstanding leader of the church, unsurpassed in his knowledge of dogmatics, a great defender of Orthodoxy, and teacher of the theology of humility, translator of patristic treasures and tiredless author of theological and spiritual studies. His writings have great relevance to us living in the spiritual “melting pot”, of the United States.
Can the Orthodox Christian be “assured” of his salvation from this life?
The Christian lives his salvation in this life in the form of a betrothal which is expressed by the clarity of his conscience, by his participation in the Divine Mysteries and a way of life which is in agreement with the will of God. However, eternal salvation with Christ depends on the Christian life-long commitment here on this earth, as far as the will of God is concerned. The weaknesses that he possesses do not give him the guarantee that he will maintain this way of life nor can he be assured of repentance after falling into a sinful lifestyle, so he cannot be totally sure that he will hold on to his salvation.
Do all people such as idolaters, bad Christians, heretics, schismatics and Christianswith mortal sins have the Grace of the Holy Spirit?
In the New Testament, God promised for the Grace of the Holy Spirit to be given to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ (Isaiah 44:3, Acts 11:17). It was especially given to the Apostles. Idolaters, unbelievers and apostates do not have the Grace of the Holy Spirit. “In the last days there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires. These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit” (Jude 18-20). In the last days many false prophets and false Christs will use deception to show that they have the Grace of the Holy Spirit and they will perform great signs and false miracles by the power of Satan in order to deceive many according to Christ (Matthew 24:25, Mark 13:22), to deceive even the elect and to distance them from the true faith (Rev. 19, 20). Christians who fall into great sins “sadden the Holy Spirit” (Ephesians 4:30) however they don’t lose the Grace of their salvation. If they return with all their heart to the path of repentance, confession and good works, they receive once again very abundantly the Grace of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38). Heretics and Schismatics do not have the Divine Grace because they sinned against the Holy Spirit and their malice of unbelief has been made evident being that it opposes the true faith of Christ…” The Church yesterday today and forever The theology of the Roman Catholics considers grace created and not an energy proceeding from Christ. Salvation is living in Christ Jesus or the life of Christ for the faith through His uncreated energies. This is accomplished when a man is progressing in virtue with the help of Divine Grace.
What other Christian church possesses the grace of salvation except the Orthodox Church?
The grace of salvation can only be received in the Orthodox Church because this is an energy of Christ which remains always the same in the church yesterday today and forever. The theology of the Roman Catholics considers grace created and not an energy proceeding from Christ. Salvation is living in Christ Jesus or the life of Christ for the faithful through His uncreated energies. This is accomplished when a man is progressing in virtue with the help of Divine Grace.
Do the Protestant, Anglican, and Neo-Protestant confessions which do not have apostolic hierarchy maintain some grace of the Holy Spirit?
Salvation in the Protestant formats of faith is terribly impossible being that it lacks the union in Christ through the True Faith in Him …. Unity of the church is absolutely impossible because it lacks the Divine Mysteries through which Christ Himself works out His salvation in the hearts of men. Therefore, the faithful do not have the ability to reach holiness or the communion in Christ among them. The man of Protestantism knows something about Christ but with words only and even these lack the fullness of the Apostolic knowledge and the sanctifying energy of Christ, which is given through the Divine Mysteries to the priesthood, and the blessing…
The Orthodox Church teaches us that there is no salvation outside of the church. How are we to understand this type of thing?
Only the person who lives in the Orthodox Church keeps the fullness of the faith towards Christ and the faith in the Mysteries by which he receives the whole Christ within (Body and Blood) and becomes saved. If one sins from weakness he can choose to be forgiven. Since all these things do not exsist in the Protestant and Neo-protestant Off- shoots how can their church save its members? They only hear words about Christ and they treat these words as something external. They lack communion with Christ and His energies because these energies spring forth from His Mysteries. Their teachings are presented distorted and very nebulous concerning His person. Some of them could be saved but only through exceptional means from great works that they may perform and from the general spirit of these confessions. But they cannot have any assurance, or confidence of this.
Is salvation possible for the Christians who separated themselves from the bosoms of the Orthodox Church?
Members of the Orthodox Church who knew the True Faith and the conditions of their salvation, but out of carelessness refused to take advantage of them and finally denied this faith, they cannot be saved unless they repent for their deeds and return into the bosom of the Church …St. Dumitru Staniloae
Why the Pope is Outside the Church – Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis Explains file:///C:/Users/johnd/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.png“
The Pope… expelled Christ the Lord of all from the Western Church, and therefore the Western Church remains Christ’s widow.”(3rm.info) Dec 15, 2023 | 1400 words 170 Comments MORE:EXPLAINING ORTHODOXY Originally appeared at: 3rm.info