Basic Points of Difference between the Orthodox
Church and Papism
By the Reverend Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, His
Eminence IEROTHEOS Vlachos
The bishops of Old Rome, beside small and
non-essential differences, always held communion with the bishops of New
Rome(Constantinople) and the bishops of the East until the years 1009-1014,
when, for the first time, the Frankish bishops seized the throne of Old
Rome. Until the year 1009 the Popes of
Rome and the Patriarchs of Constantinople were unified in a common struggle
against the Frankish princes and bishops, already even at that time heretics.
The Franks at the Synod of Frankfurt in 794
condemned the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod and the honorable
veneration of the holy icons. Likewise
in 809 the Franks introduced into the Symbol of the Faith the “Filioque”
(Latin: “and the Son”); namely, the doctrine concerning the procession of the
Holy Spirit both from the Father and from the Son. Now at that time the Orthodox Pope of Rome
condemned this imposition. At the Synod
of Constantinople presided over by Photios the Great, at which also
representatives of the Orthodox Pope of Rome participated, they condemned as
many as had condemned the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod and as many
as had added the Filioque to the Symbol of Faith. However, the Frankish Pope Sergius IV, in the
year 1009, in his enthronement encyclical for the first time added the Filioque
to the Symbol of Faith. Then Pope
Benedict VIII introduced the Creed with the Filioque into the worship service
of the Church, at which time the Pope was stricken out from the diptychs of the
Orthodox Church.
The basic distinction between the Orthodox
Church and Papism is found in the doctrine concerning the uncreated nature and
uncreated energy of God. Whereas we
Orthodox believe that God possesses an uncreated nature and uncreated energy
and that God comes into communion with the creation and with man by means of
His uncreated energy, the Papists believe that in God the uncreated nature is
identified with His uncreated energy (acrus purus) and that God holds communion
with the creation and with man through His created energies, even asserting
that in God there exist also created energies.
So then the grace of God through which man is sanctified is seen as
created energy. But given this, one
cannot be sanctified.
From this basic doctrine proceeds the teaching
concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son,
the cleansing fire, the primacy of the Pope, etc.
Beside the fundamental difference between the
Orthodox Church and Papism, in the theme of the nature and energy of God, there
are other great differences which have given rise to topics of theological
dispute, namely:
--the Filioque, that the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father and from the Son with the result that the monarchy of the
Father is diminished, the final equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity is
compromised, the Son is diminished in His own character in having been born, if
there exists a oneness between Father and Son then the Holy Spirit is
subordinated as not equal in power and of the same glory with the other Persons
of the Holy Trinity, with the result that He is shown as the “unproductive
(steiro) Person,”
--the utilization of unleavened bread in the
Divine Eucharist which transgresses the manner with which Christ accomplished
the Mystical Supper,
--the consecration of the “precious Gifts”
which takes place not with the epiclesis, but rather with the proclamation of
Christ’s words of institution, “Take, eat . . . drink of it, all of you . . .,”
--the view that the sacrifice of Christ on the
Cross satisfied the Divine justice, which presents God the Father as a feudal
lord and which overlooks the resurrection,
--the view about the “merits” of Christ which
the Pope dispenses, along with the “superabundant” grace of the saints,
--the alienation and segmentation placed
between the mysteries of Baptism, Chrismation, and the Divine Eucharist,
--the doctrine concerning the inheritance of
guilt from the ancestral sin,
--the liturgical innovations in all of the
mysteries of the Church (Baptism, Chrismation, Ordination, Confession,
Marriage, Anointing),
--the practice of not communing the laity in
the “Blood” of Christ,
--the primacy of the Pope, according to which
the Pope is “episcopus episcoporum (Latin: the bishop of bishops) and the
origin of the priesthood and of ecclesiastical authority, that he is the
infallible head and the principle leader of the Church, governing it in
monarchical fashion as the vicar of Christ on the earth” (I. Karmires). With this concept the Pope views himself as
the successor of the Apostle Peter, to whom the other Apostles submit themselves,
even the Apostle Paul,
--the non-existence of concelebration in the
praxis of worship services,
--the infallibility of the Pope,
--the dogma of the immaculate conception of the
Theotokos and the development of the worship of Mary (mariolatria), according
to which the All-Holy Virgin is elevated to Triune Deity and even becomes a
concept leading to a Holy Quaternity (!),
--the views of analogia entis (analogy of
being) and analogia fidei (analogy of faith) which hold sway in the West,
--the unceasing progress of the Church in the
discovery of the recesses of revelatory truth,
--the concept concerning the single methodology
for the knowledge of God and of creatures, which leads to a blending of
theology and epistemology.
Moreover, the great difference in practice,
which points out the manner of theology, is found also in the difference
between Scholasticism and Hesychastic theology.
In the West Scholasticism was expounded as an endeavor to search out the
meaning of all the mysteries of the faith by means of logic (Anselm of
Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas). However, in
the Orthodox Church hesychasm prevails; namely, the purification of the heart
and the illumination of the mind (nous), towards the acquisition of the
knowledge of God. The dialogue between
St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam the scholastic and uniate is characteristic and
shows the difference.
A consequence of all the foregoing is that we
have in Papism a decline from Orthodox ecclesiology. Whereas in the Orthodox Church great significance
is given to theosis which consists in communion with God, through the vision of
the Uncreated Light, then those who behold the Light gather in an Ecumenical
Synod and accurately define revelatory truth under conditions of confusion. But in Papism great significance is given to
the edict of the Pope; indeed, the Pope even stands over these Ecumenical
Synods. Consistent with Latin theology,
“the authority of the Church exists only when it is established and put in good
order by the will of the Pope. Under a
contrary condition it is annihilated.”
The Ecumenical Synods are seen as “councils of Christianity that are
summoned under the authenticity, the authority, and the presidency of the
Pope.” Whenever the Pope leaves the
meeting hall of the Ecumenical Synod, it ceases to have power. Bishop Mare has written, “There would be no
Roman Catholics more accurate as those exclaiming, “I believe also in one Pope”
than who say “I believe also in one . . . Church.”
Furthermore, “the significance and role of the
bishops within the Roman church is no more than a simple personification of the
papal authority, to which also the bishops themselves submit just as also do
the simple faithful.” Towards this papal
ecclesiology it is essentially maintained that “the apostolic authority left
off with the apostles and was not passed on to their successors, the
bishops. Only the papal authority of
Peter, under which all of the others are found, was passed on to the successors
of Peter; namely, the popes.” Along with
the foregoing it is maintained by the papal “church” that all the churches of
the East are secessionist and have deficiencies. It receives us as sister churches into
communion by dispensation (kat’ oikonomian), since she sees herself as the
mother church and sees ourselves as daughter churches.
The Vatican is an earthly power (kratos) and
each pope is the wielder of the power of the Vatican. It is a matter of a man-centered
organization, a worldly, indeed an especially legalistic and worldly organization. The earthly power of the Vatican was
instituted in the year 755 by Pepin the Short, the father of Charlemagne –even
in our own time he was recognized by Mussolini, in 1929. The source of the proclamation of papal
worldly power is significant, as Pope Pius XI maintained, “the one who stands
in God’s stead on earth cannot be obedient to earthly power.” Christ was obedient to earthly power, the
pope cannot be! The papal authority
establishes a theocracy, since theocracy is defined as subsuming both worldly
and ecclesiastical authority into one concept.
Today we can see theocratic-worldly power in the Vatican and in Iran.
Pope Innocent IV (1198-1216) maintained the
characteristic nature of these things in his enthronement speech, “He who has
the bride has the bridegroom. However
the bride herself (the church) has not been coupled with empty hands, but
brings therein an incomparably rich dowry, the fullness of spiritual goods and
the expanses of the world’s things, the largesse and abundance of both. . . .
Your contributions of the worldly things has given me the diadem, the mitre
over the priesthood, the diadem for kingdom and it has established me as His
representative (antiprosopo), in the garment and on the knee of which it is
written: the King of kings and Lord of lords.”
Consequently great theological differences
exist, which have been condemned by the Synod of Photios the Great and at the
Synod of Gregory Palamas, just as it appears in the “Synodikon of
Orthodoxy.” In addition also the Fathers
of the Church and the local synods down to the 19th century condemn all the
deceits of papism. The issue is not
mollified or improved by a certain typical excuse which the pope would give for
an historical error, whenever his theological views were outside of the
revelation and the eccesiology is moved into an enclosed course, since of
course the pope presents himself as leader of the Christian world, as successor
of the Apostle Peter and the Vicar-representative of Christ over the earth, as
if Christ would give His authority to the pope and He cease ruling in blessing
in the heavens.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου