Orthodox Reflections

Part VII of the Western Series

How Western Beliefs Changed the Original Gospel Message

… Papal Apostasy, Supremacy and Infallibility …

Irene Polidoulis MD

with the blessing of her spiritual father

Apostolic succession was established by Christ, who ordained His Twelve Apostles. To succeed them in the mission of the growing Church, “The Twelve” ordained Bishops as leaders, Priests as celebrants of the Divine Liturgy, and Deacons as servers. In turn, the Bishops ordained their successors and overseers. Development of Church governance was necessary because, even while being ruthlessly persecuted, the Church continued to advance and grow. Since the Roman Empire was divided into provinces, each with its own governor, the Church organized itself along the same lines; and the Bishops, all of whom had been ordained exactly the same way and with the same ecclesial authority, fell into four different administrative categories: Rural Bishops for medium-sized cities and their surrounding regions, Metropolitan Bishops for larger cities and their regions, Archbishops for states and provinces, and Patriarchal Bishops for large areas or countries, called “sees.”1

The Sacrament of Ordination

During the first ten centuries of Church History, Five Patriarchates (the Pentarchy) were established over time, which independently, but collaboratively and cohesively governed the Church. The first three, in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, were recognized by the First council of Nicaea in the 1st century. When Constantine the Great moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople in the 4th century, Constantinople was also added, followed by Jerusalem in the 5th century. The official recognition of the Pentarchy (the Five Patriarchates) took palce in 451 A.D. at the Council of Chalcedon.1

The Patriarchs helped govern but did not “rule” the Church. Their position was one of honour and prestige. While their opinions and judgments were highly respected and they had greater honour and more administrative responsibilities than other Bishops, they were not meant to impose their authority upon any of their fellow Bishops, and they generally did not interfere with the administrative leadership of the Rural Bishops, Metropolitan Bishops or Archbishops within their sees. Problems were solved and decisions were made, not by one Bishop, but by a meeting of all Bishops. This was called an Ecumenical (meaning universal) Council or Synod, which is a democratic form of government that was adopted from the very beginning, and was initiated in 49-50 A.D., at the time of the Apostolic Synod, which the Apostles convened in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-31).1

To this day, although their administrative status may differ, all types of Bishops have equal ecclesial authority in the Orthodox Church and an equal vote in Councils or Synods. This type of government later changed in Western Europe. Although the Western church retained a form of church councils or synods, the Pope (Bishop) of Rome became head of the Western Church as the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of Christ; but the original conciliar and democratic process prevailed in Eastern Europe and still endures globally in the Orthodox Church today.1

Papal Supremacy

The idea of Papal Supremacy in the West developed in phases, beginning around the 3rd century. Because Rome was the first capital of the Roman Empire, the Second Ecumenical Council (381 A.D.) declared the Bishop of Rome (when in communion, and not in schism, with the rest of the Church) as “first among equals.” Similarly, the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451 A.D.) declared the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) equal in stature to the Bishop of Rome. These designations were intended as rights of honour to the Bishops of the capital cities of the Roman Empire, and not as rights of authority or power over the other Bishops. Also called primacy, this right of honour is similar to the honorary role and title of a committee “chair,” for example, who supervises a meeting but sits among equals, with equal voting power, and not with any supremacy in governance.5

The early Church gave this position of honour to the Bishop of Rome, by way of recognizing Rome’s significance as the capital of the Roman Empire, and as the location of the Apostles, Saints Peter’s and Paul’s, martyrdom, after they established the Church in Rome. The Orthodox Church interprets the role of these Apostles as one of honour and service, not as one of absolute authority beyond the reach of other Bishops.1 The position of primacy of the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople did not imply supremacy. It had everything to do with honour, and nothing to do with governance.

The term “Pope” (from the Latin “papa” meaning “father”) was first used in the early 3rd century to generally refer to bishops, especially in the West. Initially, it was not a formal title, but an informal term of endearment. In the West, the title increasingly became associated with the Bishop of Rome, while in the East, it was used exclusively for the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the term is still used by the Coptic Orthodox Church today. By the 11th century, the title “Pope” was officially restricted to the Bishop of Rome in the West, and was no longer used to refer to any other Western Bishop.

As the Western Roman Empire politically destabilized and declined due to a failing economy and recurring warfare, the status of the Pope increased in importance and prestige. Western Europe, which had broken down into tribal kingdoms, relied on the Bishop of Rome for economic and spiritual support, stability, and direction.2 When Rome finally collapsed in 476 A.D., the conquering ruler, King Odoacer, leader of the Germanics, made few changes to Roman administration, and left the city firmly in the hands of its then Bishop, Simplicius. In this manner, and because he was the only Patriarch of the entire Western European region, the Pope increasingly became the central figure of leadership for several tribal kingdoms, regardless of who was the invading conqueror or Byzantine ruler, as the case may have been. Having no neighbouring Patriarchal colleagues for support, and unchecked by any regional balance of ecclesial power, the Popes attained a special position of authority which gradually grew and was enjoyed by no other Bishop. 1, 2

When speaking of the Christian Hierarchy (Bishops), it is important to remember that Chief of all is our High Priest, Jesus Christ, who did not save us with His power and His glory, but by His unconditional love and utter humiliation on the Cross. To Paul, He said, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:9); but the Western mentality gradually departed from this mindset. Power came to mean survival, “might made right,” and the West gradually came to regard the Church as an Earthly Institution which brings God to earth to rule the world through one man – the Pope. With this mindset, the Roman Catholic church became very legalistic, setting up laws and rules to govern every aspect of society: education, politics, morality, social conscience and even science. It also got involved in feudalism, wars, the Industrial revolution, social inequalities and many other injustices and worldly aspects of life.1

In contrast, the East always regarded the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ – a Divine Institution – which elevates the individual to a heavenly dimension and unites him with Christ through the Holy Spirit. He enlightens, inspires and graces us and returns us to earth where we are to go out and influence society in all its aspects. Whereas the West regards the Church as the structured organization to do this, the East considers Church members to be the ones to restore God’s ruling power on earth (as it is in heaven) through their way of life. This takes the onus of responsibility off God and puts it squarely on our shoulders.1

While the Roman Patriarchal Bishop was busy navigating the challenges and changing political landscape of the West, the Eastern Patriarchates were under more direct pressure from the Byzantine Emperors, who sometimes supported the Church, and sometimes persecuted it. From 726-843 A.D., a new heresy, Iconoclasm, plagued the East. The Byzantine Emperors, likely under Islamic influence, sought to destroy all icons and replace those Patriarchs and clergy who supported them, with supporters of iconoclasm. Despite the decision of the 7th Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 787 A.D., which reinstated the icons, there was a second wave of iconoclast persecutions becasue the Byzantine Emperors ignored the decision of the Council. Many lay people and monks who defended the icons were killed during this 117 year controvery that lasted until the death of Emperor Theophilus in 843 A.D. Iconoclasm finally ended and the icons were reinstated when St. Theodora, his widow and regent for their young son, upheld the decisions of the 7th Ecumenical Council and stopped the persecutions once and for all.2

Although Iconoclasm did not affect the West directly, it had a negative impact on relations between East and West. The Popes were firm supporters of the icons and for many decades, found themselves out of communion with the Iconoclast Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople. Constantly being attacked by various tribal kingdoms, the Popes of Rome usually sought financial and military aid from the Byzantine Emperors; but because Pope Leo III supported the icons, when he sought help from the Byzantine Emperor, the latter retaliated by taking away the Province of Illyricum. From then on, the Popes stopped asking the Byzantine rulers for help.2

Thus, when Pope Stephen II was threatened by Lombard invasions in 754 A.D., he visited the Frankish ruler, Pepin III (741-768 A.D.) for support. In a very diplomatic move, Pope Stephen II anointed Pepin as King of the Franks, thereby blessing the position Pepin already held. Pepin’s armies defeated the vicious Lombards in 754 A.D. and returned to the Pope all the land he had lost from previous wars, plus new territories. This was the first time a Pope took such an active role in politics, and the idea of papal supremacy as “the first with no equals” became fixed in the West.2

The exchange between Pope Stephen II and King Pepin III was taken one step further when Pepin’s son, Charlemagne, commenced a crusade, which extended the borders of the Frankish Kingdom to include present day France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany, Luxembourg, and parts of England, Austria and Spain. He created a strong dynasty which united and ruled Western Europe for two centuries as the Holy Roman Empire.3 In a bold and unprecedented move, on December 25th, 800 AD, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne, King of the Franks, as “Emperor” of the new “Holy Roman Empire,” thus elevating the papacy above the position of royalty. In exchange for his coronation, Charlemagne granted more money and land to the Western Church and vowed to protect the Popes. 2 No longer just an idea, papal supremacy in the West became a new reality.

This was an enormous affront to the Byzantine Empire and the Church as a whole, and it further alienated East from West. Charlemagne was regarded as an intruder and a rebel against the legal ruler of the Empire in Constantinople, and the Pope’s actions were regarded as an act of schism within the Church. It also set a new precedent in the West that the selection and coronation of the Western Emperors must be sanctioned by the Popes, giving them an unprecedented position of power. Charlemagne’s coronation was eventually accepted by the Byzantines, but the growing desire of the Popes to be supreme rulers of both Church and Empire resulted in doctrinal changes that eventually led to the Great Schism of 1054 A.D. From then on, Christianity became officially divided into what was to be known as the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West.3

Fabricated and Forged Documents

To further strengthen and justify the claim of papal supremacy, two forgeries appeared during the 8th century. First came the Donation of Constantine, a false document, supposedly written by Constantine the Great in the 4th century and supposedly lost until the 8th century. This document describes Constantine’s conversion to Christianity, his baptism (which, in reality, took place on his deathbed in Constantinople) and his alleged healing from leprosy with the help of Pope Sylvester I. To express his gratitude, Constantine supposedly gave to Pope Sylvester and to all the Popes after him, his palace in Rome, and “the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts and cities of Italy or of the Western regions.” By this manner, the Popes attained the right to own property, and could claim an inheritance from Constantine, consisting of both the ownership and rule of all Western lands.2

Another forgery appeared during the 9th century, as the Decretals of Isidore, a 5th century Bishop of Seville. These stated that the Popes of Rome had supreme authority over all other Church leaders from Apostolic times, and as such, had to approve everything all the other Bishops did or said. This included the Bishops of the entire Christian Church, both East and West.2

Scroll Down to Continue

Doctrinal Changes

The Filioque in the Creed of Faith
Filioque means and the Son in Latin. When the Creed was written in the 4th century by the 1st (325 A.D.) and 2nd (381 A.D.) Ecumenical Councils, it stated, “…And (I believe) in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father…” The Western Church then added “…who proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque)…” This practice first started in the 7th century, in Toledo, Spain, for pastoral reasons, to help combat Arianism, a heresy which challenged the divinity of Christ. Charlemagne, himself, insisted upon the filioque as part of his religious reform movement, in his fight against Arianism. His goal was to strengthen the correct teaching of the Church Fathers that Christ was fully God as well as fully human. 2

Unfortunately, the addition of the Filioque introduced a new heresy that falsifies the true nature of God by demoting the Holy Spirit and distorting the equal relationship of the three persons of the Holy Trinity (see Part I – The Mystery of the Holy Trinity). Initially, the Popes resisted adding the filioque to the Creed for quite some time. In 794 A.D., Pope Leo III, ordered the Creed to be written on three silver shields – in Greek and Latin – in its original form. Two were placed in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and a smaller one in St. Paul’s Basilica. Despite this, the filioque spread throughout the West. The heresy was not detected by the East until 806 A.D. when Greek monks heard the Latin monks using it during the Divine Liturgy in Jerusalem.1

The original Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father” and not “from the Father and from the Son,” because after His resurrection, Jesus promised the Apostles “…I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth…[emphasis mine]” (John 14:16). There is no indication in Holy Scriptures or elsewhere that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. The Gospels confirm this in John 15:16: “But when the Helper (Holy Spirit) comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me [emphasis mine].” Furthermore, Jesus was “exalted at the right hand of God, and (He) received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit [emphasis mine]” (Acts 2:33).

On the surface, this point may seem trivial, but it is very important to note how theologically specific Jesus was when He described not only His equality with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but also the Love and Humility expressed as shared authority between the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Jesus did not say that He would send the Holy Spirit from the Father. He said that He would pray to the Father, and through His prayers, the Father would send the Holy Spirit to testify of Jesus. This implies equal authority and conciliar agreement within and between the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit was willing to testify of Jesus. The Father was willing to send the Holy Spirit to do this. Knowing this, however, Jesus would not grasp the authority to send the Holy Spirit Himself. Instead, He would humbly and prayerfully ask the Father to send the Holy Spirit.

The Filioque clause makes the Holy Trinity hierarchical by putting the Father and the Son above the Holy Spirit. This demotes the authority of the Holy Spirit, thereby distorting the equal relationship of the three Persons of the Trinity and falsifying the true nature of God. The equal relationship of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity is also falsified when the one Person (the Son) acts unilaterally (by sending the Holy Spirit on His own) without the conciliar activity of the other two Persons (the Father and the Holy Spirit). As one Godhead, all three Persons of the Trinity act in unison, and not in isolation the One from the Other: the Son prays, the Father sends and the Holy Spirit readily goes.2

When St. Photios, a distinguished scholar and outstanding theologian, became Patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century, he did all he could to oppose the filioque innovation, but the filioque clause in the West prevailed. At first, this heresy may not appear to be significant, but it was later used to strengthen Papal claims of not only supremacy, but also infallibility, as we shall see further below.2

The Petrine Promise
Another doctrinal change was the Petrine Promise. The Western Church changed the interpretation of Jesus’ words in the Bible when He spoke to Peter.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter [Greek: πέτρος (petros), adjective, meaning ‘rocky’], and upon this rock [Greeek: πέτρα (petra), noun, meaning ‘bedrock’] I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven [emphasis mine].” (Matthew 16:13-19, Mark 9:35-36)

According to the correct grammatical meaning of the original Greek text, Jesus distinguishes the adjective “petros” from the noun “petra.” He called Peter’s faith “rocky” or “hard as a rock” and on this “bedrock of faith” He would build His Church. By misinterpreting the original Greek text, the latter Popes of Rome considered this passage to be Jesus’ personal call to Peter to succeed Him as God’s representative on earth.

For the first ten centuries, no church Father in the East or West interpreted this passage in this way. The early Church Fathers taught that Peter’s words represented all the disciples, and when Jesus responded to Peter, He was including all His disciples and all future clergy and members of His Church in the point that He wanted to make. His point was that the confession of one’s faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God is the bedrock (“petra”) upon which Christ would build His Church – not Peter personally. All who make this confession will inherit the same promise, for “…no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3). This means that anyone who says “Jesus is Lord” does so by the Holy Spirit, and not just St. Peter. If Christ had built His Church on Peter personally, there would have been no need for Him to call twelve disciples, each of whom received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. He only needed to call one Disciple, Peter, who alone could have received the Holy Spirit and the authority to forgive sins and ordain other Bishops and clergy.^{2, 7}

Aside from the proper interpretation of the Lord’s response to Peter, there are numerous other references in Holy Scripture and Church History that oppose the idea of the supremacy of any Bishop or Patriarch, in particular, Peter’s supremacy over the other Apostles, and therefore, papal supremacy.

First, shortly after Jesus called Peter a “rock” upon which He would build His Church, He called him “Satan”.

From that time on Jesus began to show to his disciples that He must suffer many things … and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord;  this shall not happen to you!” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men [emphasis mine].                                                                                                                           (Matthew 16:21-23)

Without realizing it, Peter was tempting Jesus to avoid His crucifixion and thereby, our redemption, the very thing Satan desired. Without the death of the Lamb of God, the sin of the world would not be taken away. In the same Gospel of Matthew, we see Jesus calling Peter’s faith “a rock upon which He will build His Church” and then calling Peter “Satan”. Clearly, in both instances He is not addressing the person of Peter, but the words of Peter, for how can the same man, Peter, be both the rock of Christ’s Church and Satan? As this is not possible, it shows the importance of correctly interpreting Holy Scripture in its context.⁴

Second, Jesus went to great lengths to teach love and humility to His disciples so that none of them should seek authority over one another. This was the case when James and John requested seats of honour on His left and right when Christ came into His glory.

… James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask … Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory” … And whe the ten heard it, they began to be greatly displeased with James and John. But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, … [the] rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever among you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many [emphasis mine].”  (Mark 10:35-45, Matthew 20:20-28)

Jesus also said,

…the first will be last and last will be first.  (Matthew 19:30)

and

 …when He had washed their feet…He said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. (John 13:12-17)   

and

…A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”  (John 13:34-35)

and

…But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’ [Teacher]; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren [brothers, emphasis mine].” (Mathew 23:8) 

No Pope that aspired for supremacy adopted the humble title of “teacher,” which Christ forbade even to His Disciples, to teach them humility. These Popes adopted the supreme title of “Pontifex Maximus,” meaning the highest religious authority, an office once held by the Roman Emperor who considered himself divine. This declaration eventually led to the empowerment of the Pope to speak infallibly “ex cathedra” (“from the throne”), at the Roman Catholic Synod of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.), as “Vicar of Christ on Earth.” ⁵

In the gospels, Jesus stressed that love and humility, the frequency in which God works, should reign among His Disciples, and by extension, to all Bishops and clergy. Love and humility define the relationship between the three Persons of the Holy Trinity and are virtues that never seek supremacy over others but strive to do the work of the Lord, humbly and sacrificially, by imitating the Lord, Himself.

Third, in Acts 15:1-35, we read how during the first synod, The Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem (50 A.D.), it was James, “the brother of the Lord” (not Peter) who presided over the meeting, as James (not Peter) was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, even though Peter was a prominent Apostle who led the first Jerusalem Church.  At this synod, Peter, Paul and Barnabas successfully argued that the Christian Gentiles should not be obliged to follow Jewish religious ceremonies that were meaningless to them since they were not of a Jewish background and many of them had already received the Holy Spirit without being circumcised.¹

This first Synod was significant for several reasons. First, the Christian Church became a Universal (Catholic) Church whose mission was no longer restricted to the Jews but extended to all people; and second, it started the conciliar practice of representative Church leaders (Bishops) coming together to solve internal and external issues and conflicts. Major decisions were never made by one “supreme” Apostle or Bishop.¹

Despite his preeminence as a Disciple and later as an Apostle who was told by Christ that on the bedrock of deep faith such as his, Christ would build His Church, Peter never called himself a vicar of Christ, nor did he proclaim or exercise any supremacy over the other Apostles.¹  In fact, Peter instructed the elders not to be “domineering over those in [their] charge” (1 Peter 5:1-5). All Apostles received the authority to teach, baptize and to forgive sins, as “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4), not Peter alone. In addition, if Peter was the infallible leader of the Apostles, then there would have been no need for the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem.⁵

Peter indeed is both Apostle and leader of the Apostles [whereas] … the Pope is [merely] Bishop of Rome and that is what he is called. (Neilos Kabasilas,14^th century Palamite Theologian and successor of Metropolitan Gregory Palamas)⁵

Fourth, the Popes of Rome claim to be infallible successors of Peter, but Peter was not infallible. In fact, no human being, including the holiest of saints is sinless or infallible, except for the Godman, Jesus Christ. For instance:

After promising Jesus to stay with Him and die with Him, Peter denied Christ three times on the night of His betrayal.

… [Peter] said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.” Then [Jesus] said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.”  (Luke 22:33-34)

When Peter denied Him for the third time,

… Immediately, while [Peter] was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to Him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So Peter went out and wept bitterly. (Luke 22: 60-62)

In fact, none of the disciples stayed with Jesus except for John. All of them abandoned Him for fear of the Jews. In this regard, Peter, who was a prominent Disciple, behaved no differently from the others when he failed to keep his promise during Christ’s darkest hours.

In addition to his betrayal of Christ, when some Christian Jews later arrived in Antioch from Jerusalem, Peter gradually began to withdraw from eating with the Gentile Christians and instead ate with the Jewish Christians because he was fearful of offending the Judaizers. Judaizers were Christian Jews who compelled the Gentile Christians to undergo circumcision and keep other Old Testament laws (Acts 15:1,5; Gal. 2:3-4) that Christ’s Blood Covenant had made obsolete. As a result, Peter was guilty of several sins and Paul publicly confronted him.

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I [Paul] withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified”.   (Galatians 2:11-16)                                                                                                                       

The men who came from James were Judaizers – Jewish Christians who tried to force the culture of the Jerusalem church on the Gentiles. Jerusalem was Jewish, but to impose that culture on Gentiles was hypocrisy. To mistake culture – any culture – for the gospel is even worse. God had already shown Peter in a vision that Jewish dietary laws were obsolete (Acts 10: 11-16), for the law is fulfilled in Christ.⁴

Peter’s primary sin was that he was “not straightforward about the truth of the gospel.” He believed in salvation by grace, but by withdrawing from the Gentile Christians, his actions showed that he believed works of the law (Jewish traditions) were superior. Paul says that Peter was trying to “compel the Gentiles to live like Jews.” In doing so, Peter was creating a divide between Jewish and Gentile Christians, thus breaking the unity of the Church and nullifying the grace of God. Instead of setting a good example as a church leader, his hypocritical actions led others astray, for other Jews, “even Barnabas,” followed his lead and he upset the Gentile Christians. He also acted in complete opposition to the vision on the rooftop that God had given him earlier to show that the Gentiles were to be considered equal to the Jews and that the Old Testament dietary and circumcision laws had been abolished by Christ (Acts 10).⁴

This made it necessary for Paul to publicly confront Peter to preserve the unity of the Church. Here we have a conclusive argument in favour of the equality of the Apostles and against the papal view of Peter’s supremacy or infallibility. No individual Apostle, Bishop or Patriarch is infallible. Even when he speaks officially (ex officio), he is correctable. Unchecked, Peter could have caused a schism.⁴

Peter’s reaction to Paul’s confrontation also opposes the claim of papal supremacy and infallibility. As the oldest and most eminent of the twelve Apostles, instead of responding to Paul with pride, he bore the public rebuke of his younger colleague with humility and meekness. In a subsequent letter to the Galatians, he writes about his “beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:15-16). This required a rare degree of divine grace, which did its full work in Peter through much suffering and humiliation, as the humble, meek, gentle, and graceful spirit of his Epistles abundantly prove. The Gospels attest that humility and not pride befits a true Bishop.⁴

Fifth, many scholars disagree about Peter’s connection to Rome. In his work Against Heresies, book III, St. Irenaeus of Lyon (2^nd century) affirms that the Apostles Peter and Paul cofounded the Church in Rome, but that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, being ordained after Peter and Paul had organized Christ’s followers and founded the church there.⁵ The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles [Peter and Paul] had founded and set the Church in order [in Rome] they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office [bishopric] to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by  St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.3.3)

According to renowned French Historian, Father Vladimir Guettée,

 Linus…was already Bishop of Rome when St. Peter arrived in that city, to seal there by his martyrdom the faith he had preached.  (Abbé Guettée, The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches) ⁶

Furthermore, in one of the earliest writings, the Apostolic Constitution, Section IV, XLVI, Peter himself writes,

Of the church of Rome, Linus, the son of Claudia was the first [Bishop], ordained by Paul; and Clemens after Linus’ death, the second [Bishop], ordained by me Peter.

This indicates that St. Paul was the first Apostle to ordain a Bishop in Rome (Linus), and when that Bishop died before he could ordain a successor for himself, St. Peter ordained Clemens as the next Bishop. This would also be consistent with the interpretation that St. Linus was a disciple of St. Paul, as St. Paul mentions him in 2 Timothy 4:2, and that Paul came to Rome ahead of Peter. In his Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul sends greetings to 27 persons in Rome, but Peter is not among them. If at any time, Peter was the acting Bishop of Rome, would Paul not have mentioned him, even if he happened to be absent? Hence, a conneaction between Peter’s time in Rome and “Petrine Supremacy” is not scripturally based.⁵

Historically, and according to Holy Tradition, Saints Peter and Paul both died in Rome after both established the Church there, but there is no evidence that Peter served as a monarchial Bishop in Rome, held an episcopal position there, or that he held exclusive authority over the other Apostles. There is also no evidence that the early church knew of any special authority vested in any Bishop of Rome; nor are there any Patristic writings by the early Church Fathers to indicate that the early Church accepted the Papal theory of a Petrine Promise. In fact, the Orthodox Church rejects exclusive Petrine authority. Had Rome been the seat of Church supremacy and power, St. Constantine the Great, who had convened the first Ecumenical Synod (following the Apostolic Synod in Jerusalem), would have done so in Rome, rather than Constantinople (New Rome).

Sixth, when the Apostles established churches and ordained Bishops and Presbyters to serve them, the clergy they ordained remained and resided in the local parish, while the Apostles moved on to spread the Gospel. The word apostle means the one who is sent out (Greek: Αποστολος, Apostolos). The word bishop comes from the word Episcopos (Greek: Επισκοπος) which means the one who oversees. All of the Apostles were “sent out” as they were given the Great Commission from Christ:

All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age [emphasis mine].   (Matthew 28: 18-20)

On his way to Rome, where he was martyred, St. Peter traveled through many other towns and cities where he established churches and ordained Bishops and Presbyters, as did all the Apostles. The Bishops that Peter ordained on his missionary journeys are also his Apostolic descendants, and as such, could make equal claims for supremacy and infallibility as do the Bishops of Rome. However, no such claims have ever been made, not even by the Church of Antioch, which St. Peter founded, after first founding churches in other cities where he ordained Bishops. Before going to Rome, St. Peter spent two years in Antioch, also an eminent city, where he ordained Evodius as Antioch’s first Bishop.⁸ Antioch later became a Patriarchate but still made no claim for supremacy or infallibility based on a so-called “Petrine Promise.”

The Orthodox Church considers all of the Apostles to be Bishops, in the sense that they had the authority from Christ to ordain Bishops as Christianity spread and grew. However, unlike the Bishops they ordained, the Apostles did not function as overseers with an area bishopric. They moved from place to place, not remaining for long in the churches they established, as that was not their role. When Divine Liturgy was served, the Apostles, wherever they were, likely served the Liturgy as Bishops. However, in Scripture, they are not referred to as Bishops, but as Apostles. In the majority of his epistles, St. Paul refers to himself as an Apostle, and not as a Bishop (Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 9:1), despite having established many churches and conducted many ordinations on his missionary journeys. Likewise, in both his epistles, St. Peter also refers to himself as an Apostle:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ… (1 Peter 1:1)

and

Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ….  (2 Peter 1:1)

If Peter had the bishopric of Rome, would he not have referred to himself as “Bishop of Rome,” especially considering Christ had called him a “rock” and Rome was such an eminent city? Evidently, both the Scriptures and the early Church made a clear distinction between the Apostles and the Bishops the Apostles ordained, as the Scriptures do not name  any Apostle as the Bishop of any of the churches they established.

A case in point is Timothy, who was a close companion and disciple of Paul, and was mentored and ordained by Paul as the first Bishop of Ephesus in 64 AD, despite the fact that it was Paul who founded the Church in Ephesus in 53-57 AD. Neither Paul, nor the Scriptures, nor any church historian, nor anyone in all of Christendom, has ever referred to Paul as the first Bishop of Ephesus, or as first Bishop of any of the other towns and cities in which he established churches. Furthermore, St. Paul was not the first Apostle to arrive in Ephesus. St. John the Theologian arrived there, together with Christ’s Mother in the flesh, as her guardian, between 38 and 47 AD, to protect her from the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem. Mary lived there in a house (that remains to this day) on Mount Koressos, about 3 miles from the ancient city of Ephesus, while St. John established a centre for the spread of Christianity in Ephesus. And yet, St. John, has never been referred to as the first Bishop of Ephesus.

 Seventh, latter day Roman Catholicism presupposes that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times. The novelty of this idea is clearly demonstrated by the witness of one of the greatest Bishops of Rome, St. Gregory the Great (540-604 AD). When the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (Universal) Patriarch, St. Gregory who was Bishop of Rome at the time, condemned any such title as indicating pride equal to that of the Antichrist:

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal Bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole Bishop exalteth himself above others.            (St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome)

St. Gregory also refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal with, and not superior to, his fellow Patriarchs. He wrote these words to the Patriarch of Alexandria:

Your Holiness … you gave to me … the vainglorious titles of Universal [Ecumenical] and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future … for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that [to be] an honor [to me] which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity … Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity… [Emphasis mine].  (St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome

Was St. Gregory, one of the early Patristic Fathers of the Church, unaware that St. Peter had universal authority over the Church? This alone should suffice as proof that Peter’s supremacy over the Church and his passing it on to the Bishops of Rome, was not instituted by Christ.⁶

At no time have the ancient Eastern Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, or the new Patriarchates of Russia, Serbia, Romania and Bulagaria, advanced any contention of their own supremacy. And although the Patriarch of Constantinople has a primacy of honour, there is no centralized authority corresponding to the Roman Pope in the Orthodox Church. The Patriarchates that comprise the Eastern Orthodox Church are independent of one another administratively, yet united in faith, tradition, sacramental life, worship, and canonical discipline.⁵  In the Orthodox Church,

Every bishop possesses the seat of Peter. (Meyendorff, Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, p. 16)

Papal Infallibility

Together, the filioque clause and the Petrine Promise became a very powerful combination which the West eventually found useful to justify giving supreme power to the Bishop (Pope) of Rome. The combination works as follows: If the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son (filioque) then Jesus can send the Holy Spirit by Himself, without the participation of the Father (thereby compromising the perfect love and humility within the Holy Trinity). If Peter is Jesus’ supreme successor on earth (the Petrine Promise) because Christ built His Church on Peter personally, then only Peter represents Christ and inherits from Christ the sole power and authority to send the Holy Spirit. If the Popes of Rome are successors of Peter, they, too, inherit the sole power and authority to send the Holy Spirit. The Pope now becomes Christ’s Vicar and Representative on earth, and he cannot err since he alone has the Holy Spirit which is never wrong – hence the infallibility of the Pope.¹

It was the Roman Catholic Synod of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.) that declared the Pope “Vicar (sole representantive) of Christ on Earth.”  This declaration led to the eventual empowerment of the Pope to speak infallibly ex cathedra (“from the throne”), a subsequent declaration that was made at the First Vatican Council in 1870.¹ Although the Roman Catholic church does practice conciliarity and believes that the Holy Spirit is present in the entire church, the assertion that the Pope has supreme teaching authority “ex cathedra,” runs contrary to Holy Tradition. The infallibility dogma also creates a new problem for the Roman Catholic Church, which to the author’s knowledge, has not yet been addressed. What happens to the “ex cathedra” infallibility of a Pope when the next Pope introduces a different dogma “ex cathedra”?

The Orthodox Church places great importance on the first eight centuries when the entire Church used the Synodical System. This is an ancient, democratic form of Church governance, which was practised by the early Church in the Acts of the Apostles, and continues to this day. First the Apostles, and then their ordained Bishops came together in Ecumenical Councils or Synods to openly discuss fundamental issues and arrive at certain truths.²  Orthodox doctrine is based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The latter includes the writings of the Apostolic (Patristic) Fathers and the Apologists, the canonical Synods, the Symbol of Faith (the Nicene Creed), the discourses pertaining to disputes and schisms, and so on.

In the Orthodox Church, infallibility does not lie with any one individual, even if they are a Saint. The highest authority in the Orthodox Church is not any one Bishop. It is the “Conscience of the Church,” which is the consent of all the people of the Church (clergy and laity together) on the explanation of the faith given at times of its disputes. Orthodoxy maintains that the Church is not an earthly, but a Divine Institution that was established not by ordinary people, but by Christ and His Apostles, who were empowered by the Holy Spirit. Christ (not a Pope) is the Head of the whole Church (the Church Militant on earth and the Church Triumphant in Heaven). By participating in the Sacraments that were instituted by Christ, His followers, which is the Church, made up of both clergy and lay persons, become sanctified as members of the Body of Christ. Since Christ is infallible, His Body, the Church, is protected by the Holy Spirit from making error. Thus, the Orthodox Church is infallible in her teachings and dogmas because of her inseparable union with the infallible Christ, her Head and Bridegroom.⁹

To be continued with Part VIII – The Causes of the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation

 References

1. George Nicozisin, The Orthodox Church: A Well-Kept Secret, A Journey Through Church History, pg. 19-73
2. George Nicozisin, A History of the Church Part II, pg. 83-98
3. Orthodox Christianity, The Great Schism: The Estrangement of Eastern and Western Christendom http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx
4. The Orthodox Study Bible, Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World, Old & New Testaments, texts & exegesis p.1300, 1486-1487, 1590-1591
5. Constantine Mathews, Eastern Orthodoxy Compared: Her Main Teachings and Significant Differences with Roman Catholicism and the Major Protestant Denominations (Minneapolis, Minn: Light & Life Publishing Company, 2006), 22–28
6. Abbé Guettée, The Papacy: Its Hostoric Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, p 22, 184, 144-145, 219

https://books.google.ca/books?id=VcEOAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

7. John Maxwell, “Thou art Peter,” Orthodox Research Institute,

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.html

8. Holy Apostles Convent, The Lives of the Holy Apostles, p 10-11

9. 9. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, The Basic Sources of the Teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church

https://www.goarch.org/-/the-basic-sources-of-the-teachings-of-the-eastern-orthodox-church