Roman Catholics ARE Truly Orthodox

Answers In-Depth to Questions about Christianity

Roman Catholics ARE Truly Orthodox

QUESTION: We are having great difficulty in deciding whether to become Roman Catholic or Eastern
Orthodox. There seems to be a big fork in the road. My wife and I know we must leave
Protestantism. Even though losing some of our friends is difficult, the theological reasons are quite
clear. The Bible does not teach the "Bible Alone" teaching, the sub-apostolic church believed in
baptismal regeneration, Ignatius of Antioch taught that the Holy Eucharist is the Body of Christ that
suffered on the Cross, and long-term unity is impossible without some sort of infallible church. But
when it comes to the choice between the two historic churches which claim to be infallible, we seem
paralyzed, even though both of us graduated from Moody Bible Institute. We are discovering that
we still have so much to learn. Our oldest son has recently become Eastern Orthodox, and my
grandmother was Eastern Orthodox. Also, at Moody, both of us imbibed much anti-Catholicism. So
the path of least resistance is Eastern Orthodoxy. Our son has even put us in contact with his
Orthodox priest. He seem to make a good case. As easy as it would be just to follow our hearts
eastward, I know we should be using our heads and sorting out the truth about the historical issues
and commitments reflected in the division between Rome and the East. How do you defend the
Roman Catholic Church against the many charges that Eastern Orthodox leaders like to make against
it? Answered by Rev. Paul L. Rothermel

Roman Catholicism possesses an integral continuity with the Church before the Schism.
While Catholic leaders do not tend to call the Orthodox “heretics,” the reverse is not true.
We should not attack Eastern Orthodox; we may clarify for them what Catholics believe.
We may reply clearly and charitably to Eastern Orthodox objections to true Catholicism.
When one who has a good disposition knows the truth better, he or she will love it more.
Eastern Orthodox tend to take pride in viewing their life in Christ as a mystery to be lived.
Roman Catholics tend to view their life in Christ as a challenge for living AND reflection.
Westerners seek fuller explanations of the mysteries, not merely cutting off false opinions.
Ever deeper, humble thinking about the mysteries is loving God “with one’s whole mind.”
Jesus suffered on Calvary to save rationalistic Westerners as much as mystical Easterners.
Traditionally Orthodoxy and Catholicism consider themselves complete without the other.

This is what it means to claim to be the Church of Christ, which is “catholic” (complete).
The test of true catholicity is not more convenient liturgies or more efficient organization.
Informed Catholics believe that some truly baptized Christians have never been Catholics.
Some Orthodox believe that some truly baptized Christians have never been Orthodox.
Ecumenical Catholics claim both share the same ontology because of “the same baptism.”
Baptism means both share the same Body, Spirit, Hope, Lord, and God (Ephesians 4:3-6).
In some deep sense, it must also be true that Catholics and Orthodox share the same Faith.
In another real sense Catholics and Orthodox do not as yet have full visible unity of Faith.
Some Catholics and some Orthodox are material heretics who intend to profess the Truth.

The full visible unity of all the baptized is the ultimate goal of the ecumenical movement.
Denying that any baptism by a heretic can be valid revives a heresy as old as St. Cyprian.
Between the days of Cyprian and the Schism, such a teaching of baptism was unorthodox.
Today some Orthodox leaders baptize every convert from Romanism while others do not.
Which Eastern Orthodox leaders, ecumenical or anti-ecumenical, are the orthodox ones?
Both Catholics and Orthodox have convinced millions of experiencing a union with God.
Anti-ecumenical Orthodox believe Catholicism and Orthodoxy are ontologically different.
Many Catholic traditionalists believe Catholicism and Orthodoxy are different beings too.
Catholic traditionalists inconsistently believe this if they treat Orthodox as truly baptized.
Grace always changes baptized infants, even if not baptized adult heretics (St. Augustine).
The ancient truth that non-Catholics can be truly baptized is clear from Catholic Tradition.
Pope Stephen I, in his controversy with St. Cyprian of Carthage, taught this definitively.

Can any genuine papal primacy exist without some sort of universal power and authority?
The Pope possesses more than a primacy of honor but never less than a primacy of honor.
Honor without universal authority was not the most ancient meaning of primacy of honor.
Primacy of mere honor could not accomplish the divine purpose of visible Church unity.
Primacy of honor includes authority like that which a son grants when he obeys his father.
The Pope of Rome has primacy in the kind of fatherly authority possessed by all bishops.
Primacy of jurisdiction does not need to exclude primacy of service and primacy of honor.

The divine authority of each of the Apostles was equal in one sense but not in every sense.
A pope has no greater participation in the Sacrament of Holy Order than any other bishop.
The pope is a bishop who has additional duties of universal service (unity and orthodoxy).
Like the captain of a basketball team, the pope is a player with additional responsibilities.
Like the owner or coach of a basketball team, Christ has chosen the pope to be its captain.
Unlike fathers and sons, game captains tend to be just as creative as other team members.
Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs have more responsibilities of ministry than do other bishops.
God gives greater authority to those who have greater responsibilities within His Church.
Eastern disputes with Rome often were protests of Rome’s micro-managing local affairs.
The right of papal intervention in local affairs is one matter, the wisdom of this is another.
Legates of Pope John VIII (879) promised to minimize papal interventions in New Rome.

In First Clement, Pope Clement forcefully corrected scandalous local affairs at Corinth.
Polycarp traveled to confer with Pope Anicetus about some local Eastern Easter customs.
In the second century, Pope Victor acted with authority to excommunicate Asian dioceses.
St. Irenaeus rebuked him, because their offensive way of observing Easter was Apostolic.
Irenaeus considered such a course unwise, but did he deny Pope Victor’s right to do so?
When we again hear of these dioceses decades later, they have abandoned these practices.
Did St. Irenaeus teach that other churches must agree with Rome OR confer with Rome?
Eastern Orthodox churches today do not agree with the Roman Church nor confer with it.

Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Melkite churches of the 5th century taught papal authority.
This proves that wide Eastern recognition of papal authority existed prior to Chalcedon.
Pseudo-Nicene canons curse Patriarchs who do not submit to the Pope as sons to father.
These Arabic canons say the Pope is like Peter, who was father to the universal Church.
This means that the Pope has the power of a father over the entire Christian community.
He has power to do everything that he wishes for the good of those within his dominion.

An ancient tradition says the Popes convened and confirmed all past ecumenical councils.
This was reported by the Arab Bishop of Haran, Theodore Abou-Qurra, who wrote in 820.
St. Methodius or a disciple of his asserted this too (1st Slavonic edition of ”Nomocanon”).
While it seems Emperors convened some of them, the Popes have confirmed all of them.
To have universal force, all conciliar decisions have always required papal authorization.
The Apostolic See ratifies each council’s proceedings by its authority (Pope St. Gelasius).
Ss. Methodius, Maximus, Theodore the Studite, and many other Eastern fathers agreed.
Catholics believe that all definitive teachings of a genuine ecumenical council bind popes.
While a pope must confirm an ecumenical council, he must conform to all such teachings.
The only absolute monarch in the Church is Jesus Christ, the invisible Head of the Body.
The papacy is morally bound to God’s laws and to the content of Scripture and Tradition.
No ecumenical council has decreed that ecumenical councils need no papal confirmation.

Before the Schism, popes deposed heretical bishops and overturned conciliar decisions.
Leo I stripped Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, of his bishopric (the Acts of Chalcedon).
What the Apostolic See of Rome has decided remains a closed matter (Pope Boniface I).
This is because no higher authority exists to which anyone can appeal (Pope St. Gelasius).
A pope can condemn without a council someone it failed to condemn (Pope St. Gelasius).
Any conciliar decision that the pope does not sanction is invalid, said Pope Julius (d. 352).
Julius claimed a canon taught that the pope could nullify conciliar decisions (Sozomen).
Julius retained the right to reinstate bishops deposed by Arian-controlled Eastern councils.
The Council of Sardica authorized deposed bishops to appeal for papal aid in arbitration.
This is why the Council of Sardica (343) could reinstate St. Athanasius and other prelates.
The Council of Sardica expected “all provinces” to appeal such depositions to the Pope.
Council in Trullo at Constantinople (690) approved the canons of the Council of Sardica.
Thus a council viewed as ecumenical by Eastern Orthodoxy reflects true papal primacy.
Eastern Church delegates did not recognize a “Pope” created by the Council of Constance.
They recognized the anti-conciliarist Pope Eugenius IV as the legitimate Bishop of Rome.

The three chief sees (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch) are tied to St. Peter (Pope St. Damasus).
A ship from Rome via Alexandria to Antioch allowed quick Empire-wide communication.
Pope St. Celestine’s letters controlled Nestorius’ condemnation at the Council of Ephesus.
In this case a Pope fully endorsed the work of an orthodox bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril.
More than a struggle against heresy, this asserted the Alexandrian See’s traditional status.
The Council of Chalcedon petitioned Pope Leo I to confirm its canons, including the 28th.
They hoped he would accept them as a whole, without noticing the innovation in the 28th.
Eastern bishops at the Council shunned protests from Leo’s legates concerning the matter.
Anatolius wrote Leo that confirming this is “reserved for the authority of Your holiness.”
This was a new attempt to expand Constantinople’s jurisdiction at Alexandria’s expense.
Pope Damasus had thwarted an attempt of the Council of Constantinople I to do the same.
Chalcedon’s bishops now took advantage of the recent heresy of the bishop of Alexandria.
Chalcedon’s bishops do not accuse Pope Leo of a fundamentally heterodox ecclesiology.
Pope Leo was orthodox when he decreed the 28th canon of Chalcedon to be null and void.
Popes Julius, Damasus and Celestine promoted the same mind-set long before Chalcedon.
When Pope Leo refused to budge, Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, acquiesced.
When Pope Leo refused to budge, the Emperor Marcian explicitly yielded to his decision.
Canon 28, promoted by a minority of bishops, violated rights of Alexandria and Antioch.
It was impossible to expand Constantinople’s jurisdiction without violating ancient rights.
Leo nullified it since it promoted the see of Constantinople contrary to canons of Nicaea I.
Pope Leo claimed he was voiding this canon “by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter.”
Other contemporary bishops never acted as if this decree of Pope Leo I was null and void.
Canon 28 is missing from some of the earliest Eastern collections of the conciliar canons.
Why did it take two and a half centuries to be listed within such Eastern collections (690)?
There is no evidence the Roman Bishop ever accepted the canons of the Council at Trullo.
Eastern Orthodox today cannot accept both Nicaea I’s sixth canon and Chalcedon’s 28th.

There are Fathers and Councils before the Schism that did claim what Catholics proclaim.
In these centuries, papal claims of supreme jurisdiction were widely known and believed.
For centuries no Eastern bishop, not even Photius, maintained such a claim to be heretical.
Since the “undivided Church” was not schizoid, Eastern Orthodoxy is less than orthodox.
As “the Head of all the holy churches,” the pope deserves to know their state (Justinian).
Near the end of the 6th century, John, Patriarch of Jerusalem, taught papal infallibility.
He taught that Peter’s successor in “the first most holy and venerable See” is “infallible.”
Patriarch John concluded that this was true because it is “according to the Word of God.”
Over half a century later Stephen of Dora wrote similarly in his letter to Pope Martin I.
He designated the Apostolic See “the foundation of the orthodox doctrines” worldwide.
Peter is “head of the Apostles,” and his See “the Chair which rules and presides over all.”
St. Maximus alludes to “all holy Councils according to the sacred canons and definitions.”
The Incarnate Word gave Peter supreme, worldwide dominion (Maximus the Confessor).
He got “universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing.”
This gift is exercised “over the holy churches of God all over the world” (St. Maximus).
St. Theodore of Studium in the 8th century claimed that Pope Leo III is Peter’s successor.
He claimed as a humble monk to have learnt from ancient Fathers about the Pope’s role.
He described this role as condemning courageously the doctrinal innovations of heretics.
When heretics convoke councils without papal knowledge, they are usurping authority.
He claimed no orthodox council could be called without papal knowledge and approval.
St. Theodore attributed this contemporary, quite restrictive policy to an “ancient custom.”
He appealed to Leo III to call a council to save “our Church” the way Christ saved Peter.
For Theodore, Pope Leo III is “the chief Pastor” because St. Peter is chief of the Apostles.
Because of divine promises to Peter, Theodore elsewhere called Rome “the chief church.”
He wrote to holy Emperor Michael II and called Rome “the head of the churches of God.”
The Emperor may know Rome decrees the final word “according to the ancient tradition.”
He noticed this ancient tradition was “handed down by our Fathers from the beginning.”
St. Necephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople, showed how the papacy validated Nicaea II.
The approval and abrogation of doctrines may not happen without the approval of Rome.
In 787 the papacy presided “according to the divine rules established from the beginning.”
Because of Saints Peter and Paul, the glorious papacy acted as “guide in the priesthood.”
Arab Bishop St. Theodore Abou-Qurra taught Peter’s promises are for Roman successors.
Theodore wrote that Jesus’ words made Peter “the foundation of the Church of the flock.”
Peter “will never lose his faith,” and he implies that neither shall his Roman successors.
St. Ignatius of Constantinople believed that Peter’s promises were for Roman successors.
These were for all “made Chief Pastors, and divine and sacred pontiffs of Elder Rome.”
Hadrian II, “the most universal physician,” was “successor of the Prince of the Apostles.”
Gregory Palamas said that Peter was father of the pious race and the Church’s foundation.

Early Church fathers and councils attributed unique privileges and prerogatives to popes.
This proves that all bishops were not deemed Peter’s successors in the way popes were.
If in full communion with the pope, each one is Peter’s successor in proclaiming his Faith.
As Roman Catholics officially teach, episcopal collegiality complements papal primacy.
There is room for both a pope as THE Vicar of Christ and for bishops as vicars of Christ.
For Cyprian, the Chair of Peter was the true Church’s sacramental and teaching authority.
A universal Chair of Peter does not necessarily exclude a regional or local Chair of Peter.
A Greek taste for democracy influenced Eastern Orthodoxy’s leveling of papal authority.

If Matthew and Luke borrowed much from Mark, then three gospels derive from St. Peter.
The New Testament’s inspiration depends upon the Holy Spirit, not Church recognition.
The New Testament’s authority depends upon Rome’s recognition of divine inspiration.
The Petrine biblical texts have a cumulative force justifying the Roman Catholic Church.
Whatever the inspired biblical writers asserted is asserted by the Spirit to be God’s Word.
In the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit asserted more than the inspired biblical writers asserted.
The Twelve knew Jesus was the Son of God before Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 14:33).
The only Church that Jesus Christ established was “built” uniquely on Peter, “the Rock.”
Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kepha (Aramaic), or Petros (Greek), which means Rock.
When the Lord changed the names of Abram and Jacob, He signified their new missions.
Abram’s name was changed with a view to his one day becoming father of many nations.
Unlike Boanerges, Rock is not a nickname, because the words of Matthew 16 are solemn.
Unlike Boanerges, Peter’s new designation is shared with no one else, even his brother.
Andrew knew that Jesus was the Christ (Messiah) before Peter gained this special insight.
Simon’s name was changed (John 1:42) with a view to his one day receiving the primacy.

All the other foundational stones (Apostles) were set upon this Rock-foundation (Peter).
Like Jesus, Peter, the visible Rock of the Church, has become a stumbling stone to many.
Often the same Church fathers say that the Rock is Peter and that the Rock is Peter’s faith.
For much of his life, Augustine of Hippo vacillated on which Christ primarily intended.
St. Peter’s faith is the on-going link between Peter’s person and his on-going papal office.
Peter and his faith are inseparable as the reason why Jesus conferred on him the primacy.
By confessing his faith in the divinity of the Christ, Peter became the Rock of the Church.
Peter was immoveable in faith, and so Jesus made him the Rock (St. John Chrysostom).

Even Eastern Church fathers taught that Jesus built His Church on St. Peter as the Rock.
This was a firm conviction of Persian Jacob of Nisibis, who attended Council of Nicaea I.
A little later, St. Ephrem and St. Gregory of Nyssa believed the Church was “upon Peter.”
Many early popes acted as if they were the supreme universal judges in doctrinal matters.
Later evidence exists that some acted as supreme universal judges in disciplinary matters.
When the view of episcopal jurisdiction was evolving, so also was this papal jurisdiction.
Philip, papal legate to the Council of Ephesus, said Peter lives and decides in the popes.

For a very long time leading up to the Schism, many popes taught primacy of jurisdiction.
These include Pope Boniface I, St. Leo the Great, St. Damasus, John VIII, and Nicholas I.
Popes have always wielded both pastoral and jurisdictional authority on universal issues.
On clearly universal issues the papacy’s judgments were sought and valued by everyone.
Such teachers of universal jurisdiction included Popes St. Gelasius, and St. Hormisdas I.
Pope Zosimus taught that St. Peter’s prayers kept the Apostolic See unfailingly orthodox.
Pope Zosimus taught that ancient Tradition did not allow anyone to dispute his judgments.
Pope St. Leo the Great claimed all the Roman rights defined by Vatican I (V. V. Bolotov).
This is the one of which the Council of Chalcedon said, “Peter has spoken through Leo.”
Chalcedon called Leo “Head,” “Custodian of the Vine,” and deferred to his “judgment.”
Jesus Christ, not councils, bestowed primacy on the Church of Rome (Pope St. Damasus).
A pope can legitimately loose any judgment of any bishop anywhere (Pope St. Gelasius).
A pope ratifies each ecumenical council by his own authority from Jesus (Pope Gelasius).
A pope can rightly condemn any heretic a council has failed to condemn (Pope Gelasius).
St. Pope Gelasius claimed canons authorizing him to judge the whole Church if necessary.
Pope Gelasius claimed canons teaching there is no recourse to the Roman See’s judgment.
Councils promoted the papal claims in the Eastern Empire but were not the cause of them.

Despite Chalcedon’s 28th canon, Roman primacy did not arise from political capital status.
Since Rome was a pagan city, the church there had primacy because of Peter, not politics.
Emperors lived in Christian Milan and Ravenna, but these cities never gained the primacy.
The bishop of Caesarea was the metropolitan of the church in Jerusalem until Chalcedon.
Since both churches had apostolic foundations, political status was a factor in structuring.
The bishop of Milan allowed political structuring under Diocletian to determine his flock.
The Catholic argument against political status concerns the main Apostolic sees, not all.
It even fits that politics moved “the Fathers” Peter and Paul to make the primacy Roman.
The fact Constantinople was a political capital could not subvert Apostolic constitutions.
Pope St. Gregory the Great claimed that no one doubted Constantinople’s subordination.
Over 2000 Eastern bishops signed the Formula of Pope Hormisdas (517) to end a schism.
Even the bishop of Constantinople signed it to end the Acacian Schism of Monophysites.
This Reunion Formula stated agreement with the Apostolic See defines full communion.
This Reunion Formula stated that the Apostolic See had never even once taught a heresy.
This Formula stated that this purity in orthodoxy derives from Christ’s promises to Peter.
Later all bishops at the Constantinopolitan council that deposed Photius (869) affirmed it.
This was long after the Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned actions of Pope Honorius.
None of the Ecumenical Councils ever declared that Pope Honorius directly taught heresy.

Jesus gave only to Simon Peter the authority to use the “Keys” of the kingdom of Heaven.
There is no biblical evidence that Christ gave the same “Keys” to the rest of the Apostles.
The “Key” of David’s Kingdom passed from Shebna to Eliakim, and from Christ to Peter.
The Church restores David’s Kingdom, over which Eliakim acted as God’s chief steward.
Jesus taught He would appoint “the wise and faithful servant” to act as His chief steward.
We can expect the most prominent true servant of Christ to be mistreated like Christ was.
The Apostolic See is used to slanderous falsehoods and hateful calumnies (Pope Agatho).
Promise of binding and loosing power to Peter includes its promise to the Apostolic band.
Peter received this promise alone and later received it again as part of the Apostolic band.

Could several Apostles “bind and loose” something against the will of Peter and the rest?
When there is a dispute, it is the Pope who holds the authority, since he is given the Keys.
Universal primacy exists always at the service of universal communion among Christians.
St. Peter receives the Keys for all and so stands for universality and unity (St. Augustine).
He wrote that first our Savior and then St. Peter stood for all who teach the orthodox faith.
St. Augustine is the ancient Church Father who wrote the most about unity and authority.
Michael Azkoul and John Romanides make Augustine the father of all Romanist heresies.
(Augustine of Hippo has recently been added to the Greek Orthodox Calendar of Saints.)
All conciliar decisions must be reported to Rome to lend strength to them (St. Augustine).

Among the Twelve, Jesus Christ gave only Peter the command to “confirm” all the others.
Nowhere else in the Bible does it mention Christ’s promise to pray for a particular person.
He prayed for Peter that Satan not ruin his faith, the reason he was chosen to be the Rock.
Although Peter’s faith never failed, three times he failed to confess his faith courageously.
Very few Popes failed to confess the faith courageously, but Vigilius and Honorius failed.
Relying upon an Arian forgery and St. Jerome’s misunderstanding, some include Liberius.
The East reliably recalls Liberius to have been a saintly, heroic champion against Arians.

Of the Twelve, Jesus gave only to St. Peter the commission to care for His entire “flock.”
The primacy promised in Matthew 16 was conferred upon Peter in the events of John 21.
Peter’s faith results in the promise of primacy, but love is the requirement for its practice.
Papal primacy is meant to be a ministry of service, a presidency of love that serves unity.
From the primacy of Peter’s headship flows unity to the Church’s members (St. Cyprian).
Erring faith has no access to bishops who sit in the Roman seat of St. Peter (St. Cyprian).
“Heretical faith can have no access” to the church of St. Paul’s Roman epistle (Cyprian).
As Christ built the Church on one man, so each local church is built on one (St. Cyprian).
The Roman see of St. Peter is the source of unity for the entire Episcopate (St. Cyprian).
Rome possesses “the principal church in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Cyprian).
The Roman Church is also called “the womb and root of the Catholic Faith” (St. Cyprian).
St. Cyprian called on Pope Stephen to depose two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martial.
This was because the Pope is Patriarch of the West AND because of universal jurisdiction.
By-passing Bishop Faustina of Lyon, Cyprian sought Stephen against Marcianus of Arles.
Anti-pope Novatian’s depositions of Eastern and Western bishops were viewed as normal.

Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism maintain that Jesus’ Church is divine as well as human.
Visible papal headship rightly balances Christ’s invisible Headship in the spiritual realm.
A visible people with a visible shepherd must seem more united than people without one.
Some Orthodox leaders proclaim Roman Catholicism is imbalanced in a human direction.
Catholicism is balanced in the “incarnational” dimension of the Church as Christ’s Body.
Some Catholic leaders suspect Eastern Orthodoxy is imbalanced in the spiritual direction.
Appeals to the mystical often cloak the seriousness of Eastern Orthodoxy’s real problems.

Erastianism dominated all aspects of Eastern Church life except the cloister (V. Soloviev).
This injuriously separated the human and divine dimensions of Orthodoxy (V. Soloviev).
This Caesaropapism meant that the will of Caesar instead of the voice of Peter held sway.
The Emperor became the secular equivalent of the Divine Christos Pantokrator in Heaven.
Byzantine Emperors never gave up their claim to being head of the Roman state religion.
Emperor Gratian gave Pope Damasus the title of “Pontiff Maximus” without full function.
Medieval popes took on emperor-like trappings in order to challenge this Caesaropapism.

Churches of Empire and of Europe sought “theocracy,” but lost independence in the East.
The West better preserved the distinction between Christian civilization and the Church.
The most radical, modern Caesaropapism was Church restructuring under Peter the Great.
Though the Holy Roman Empire was a Western innovation, the old Empire was Erastian.
Old Rome now scarcely influenced the old Empire, but it greatly influenced the new one.
Although the Holy-ness of the “Holy Roman Empire” is in doubt, its Roman-ness is not.
Although orthodoxy and catholicity do not allow for degrees, Roman-ness does so allow.
Three hundred years before Charlemagne’s crowning, a pope crowned Emperor Justin I.
Ending the Acacian Schism, this legitimized his reign for the sake of non-Monophysites.
Pope John’s crowning of Justin I was the precedent for Leo’s crowning of Charlemagne.
Papal creation of a Western Emperor provoked an Eastern distancing from papal powers.
This Empire-defending Eastern distancing from papal influence led to the Photian Schism.

The State dominated almost all aspects of eastern Church life, despite talk of “symphony.”
Many Eastern heresies were “politically correct” promotions from Constantinople’s See.
After the Empire ended politically, Orthodoxy wandered into Ethnopapism and Phyletism.
Empire continued to exist mythologically with the religious paternalism of Russian czars.
Empire continued to exist culturally in Caesaropapalism in each Eastern Orthodox nation.
In 1872 an eastern council forbade each nationality to have its own autocephalous church.

The papacy is the key to keeping universal unity in doctrine before the age of Constantine.
If an ecumenical council requires an Emperor to call it, then such councils are impossible.
Some Orthodox and all Catholics say ecumenical councils are possible without Emperors.
Many Orthodox and all Catholics believe such councils are impossible without the Popes.
Christ instituted the papacy, not the Emperors of the Roman Empire, for Church unity.
Even imperial laws derived from canonical decisions cannot over-ride Christ’s institution.
When bishops are divided, only the papacy can clarify for all which portion is orthodox.
Without a pope, there is no easy way to know when an ecumenical council has gathered.
The “Robber Council” of 449 had more bishops than some genuine ecumenical councils.
Sometimes a bishop of one of the most important Sees was not present at such a council.
Sometimes a bishop of one of the most important Sees did not remain at such a council.
After Dioscorus was condemned, the Alexandrian delegation quit the Chalcedon council.
How can a visible society have visible coherence without any form of supreme authority?
In long years between ecumenical councils, was the Church without a supreme authority?
Without a pope or Emperor, factions of bishops would keep fighting after such a council.
There will never be another Emperor, and so Orthodoxy is handicapped without the Pope.

Orthodoxy rejects Catholic dogmas (papal jurisdiction, infallibility, Filioque, original sin).
Each major heresy in the first Christian centuries claimed episcopal and conciliar support.
Each of the major heresies was defended as “orthodox” with an appeal to past traditions.
Almost any group of bishops can plausibly claim to represent the true consensus of faith.
Urban settings more readily experience new ideas of various types than rural settings do.
Changes in meaning that new ideas cause old ones go more easily undetected in city life.
Theological ideas were very influential and often attracted clerics seeking political power.
The political implications of heresy explain why ecumenical councils were Eastern ones.
The record of the see of Constantinople is marred with pre-Schism heresies and schisms.
The arch-heretic Nestorius held for a time the bishop’s office in the see of Constantinople.
Past bishops of Constantinople were Arians, Monophysites, Monothelites and Iconoclasts.
For 500 years after Constantine the Great died, this see erred two years out of every five.

For the same period of time, the see of Rome never once wandered into heresy or schism.
Whatever Pope Vigilius’ failures, he was EVER in full communion with Eastern bishops.
Theodore of Mopsuestia had died, and Theodore of Cyrus and Ibas had recanted long ago.
Pope Vigilius agreed with Emperor Justinian that their writings promoted false doctrines.
Emporer Justinian put great pressure upon Vigilius to lend his support to a condemnation.
Pope Vigilius understood that their condemnation would encourage Monophysite heretics.
So, for the sake of orthodoxy, Vigilius judged a plan to condemn them to be inopportune.
But once a council had condemned them in 553, Vigilius acquiesced for the sake of peace.
This condemnation, the Fifth Ecumenical Council’s only decree, failed to attain its goal.
The goal had been to reconcile the Monophysites of Egypt, but it only made them bolder.

Honorius did not teach the Church when he wrote ambiguous letters about Christ’s wills.
Reprehensible failing to condemn a heresy is not the same as teaching a heresy to be true.
Pope Honorius was guilty of a dereliction in his duty to resolve the Monothelite dispute.
Sergius, a Patriarch of Constantinople, led Honorius to view this as a dispute about words.
“One will” could mean that Christ’s two wills, human and divine, are always in harmony.
Many inferred from his failure to condemn Monothelitism that this doctrine was correct.
St. Maximus the Confessor deemed Honorius as “among the saints” despite his weakness.
Pope Honorius lived and died in full communion with all the orthodox bishops in the east.
An Ecumenical Council later condemned him (680), but not for explicitly teaching heresy.
This condemnation was commonly misconstrued as categorizing him as a formal heretic.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened by the Emperor but ratified by Pope Leo II.
Pope Agatho wrote to this Emperor that the Apostolic See had never erred in its doctrines.
This letter was read to the Sixth Ecumenical Council and accepted with full acclamation.
Pope Leo, who accepted the condemnation, clarified the exact nature of its stigmatization.

Thirteenth-century Spiritual Franciscans did NOT invent the dogma of papal infallibility.
In disputes about Faith, the Bishop of Rome is a sure norm of orthodoxy (St. Irenaeus).
Tested over centuries, this affirmation, “Rome does not err,” became “Rome cannot err.”
The reason for the belief that “Rome does not err” is contained in the Apostolic Deposit.
Popes do not err in teaching definitively because they cannot err in teaching definitively.
It is fitting that this should have been made explicit, since this dogma safeguards others.
The indefectible center of Church unity must be impregnable to formal heresy and schism.
Papal infallibility does not mean popes are a holier breed and cannot sin (impeccability).
History knows a few wicked popes, and some confusing periods of scandal and turmoil.
Without the popes, post-conciliar turmoil and confusion would be much more prevalent.
Scandal and turmoil and confusion cannot make the true church disappear from the earth.
Scandal and turmoil and confusion can mislead sincere souls away from this true church.
Papal infallibility does not mean disciplinary decisions of prior popes cannot be changed.
Pope John XXII rejected such a teaching of papal inerrancy in disciplinary matters (1324).

Before Vatican I, infallibility of the college of bishops was firmly acknowledged by all.
Before Vatican I, explicit profession of faith in papal infallibility was not required of any.
It began as a theological opinion, since most bishops in previous centuries did not teach it.
The theologians who rejected it argued from certain historical facts, not from revelation.
But this theological opinion became non-definitive teaching, and then definitive teaching.
Some writers, even of some catechisms, presented it as opinion before it became a dogma.
Few Vatican I bishops (88) judged papal infallibility to be a wrong opinion in every form.
Many of the powerful communications media at the time promoted these few as heroes.
The majority of the bishops came to the council already accepting the teaching as binding.
Of these, a minority thought that it was not the right time to make this teaching a dogma.

After the Church “knew” it came from Apostolic teaching, she committed herself totally.
This knowledge came from the Holy Spirit, Who never ceases to guide Christ’s Church.
Those that legitimately lead Christ’s Church can never lead the Church into certain errors.
The Holy Spirit and Petrine succession keep the Roman See reliably orthodox in teaching.
Vatican I made certain that its doctrine of papal infallibility fit all known historical facts.
Some of the earliest ecumenical councils had far less freedom of discussion and decorum.
No previous ecumenical council taught any doctrine incompatible with papal infallibility.
Infallibility of the college of bishops forever set to rest the question of papal infallibility.
While some scholars rejected this dogma, all bishops at Vatican I eventually accepted it.
The large-scale defections predicted by the communications media never materialized.
The dogma was a new one, but it is the definitive teaching of an ancient Apostolic truth.
The dogma is logical, because the visible head of an infallible Church must be infallible.
Papal infallibility allows no doctrinal innovations; it protects statements about Tradition.

Many during the first thousand years understood the Church to be a universal organism.
The ancient creed asserts, “We believe in one, holy, CATHOLIC, and Apostolic Church.”
Since the Church is a universal organism that is visible, a visible head of it is unavoidable.
To say Christ as invisible Head rules out a pope is “theological nonsense” (Schmemann).
It would make the universal Church a two-headed monster no more than the local Church.
The invisible Christ always accomplishes His will in sacraments through visible priests.
The sacraments bring about the spiritual unity that the charism of the papacy safeguards.
A pope shares in the primacy of Christ Himself (Colossians 1:18), not just His priesthood.
The Roman pope shares in the primacy of Christ Himself on the Church’s universal level.
Each metropolitan shares in the primacy of Christ Himself on the Church’s regional level.
Each bishop shares in the primacy of Christ on the Church’s local level of administration.
Every bishop shares in some authority that Christ conferred on St. Peter, but not equally.
Christ’s Headship is one of power as well as honor, and so is the pope’s visible headship.
This is not power in a worldly sense, but power for the sake of serving all God’s servants.
If each local church has a visible head, why should the universal Church be lacking one?
If a bishop images Christ to his part of God’s flock, why cannot the pope do so for all?

The Bishop of Rome is “the Head of all the most holy priests of God” (Justinian Code).
In papal letters in Acts of Nicaea II (787), Hadrian claims to be “head of all the churches.”
Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople said Hadrian presided over all the Church hierarchy.
Pope Hadrian replied to Tarasios that Peter “held and always holds the supreme power.”
The bishops at Nicaea II claimed to “follow,” “receive” and “accept” these papal letters.
If they were accepting only papal moral authority, Pope Hadrian was offering them more.
The pope is head only of the Church Militant, not of the Church Triumphant or Expectant.

Emperor Michael “the Drunkard” replaced Ignatius with Photius against the Pope’s will.
Pope Nicholas I reminded Michael that the Church everywhere “venerates” his primacy.
Roman privileges long preceded Michael’s kingship and would long survive his death.
He told him that the papacy is from God and will last as long as the Gospel is preached.
He made clear the See of Constantinople was not equal to Rome, Alexandria or Antioch.
He stated the Council of Nicaea (325) did not give any privileges to the Roman Church.
Those bishops knew in Peter Rome received “plenitude of all power” over all Christians.
Pope Nicholas I reserved the right to decide all questions of faith, morals, and discipline.
Pope Nicholas allowed no pretext or custom to set aside the decision of the Apostolic See.

The Byzantine Emperor dominated Church administration within the Byzantine Empire.
As the most exalted personage of Christendom, he guarded orthodoxy as well as empire.
Bishop Photius rejected Latin fasting on Saturdays and eating dairy products during Lent.
He viewed Latins as impiously restricting the priest’s right to be married and to confirm.
All popes dealing with Photius (Nicholas I, Hadrian II, Stephen V, John VIII) acted on it.
All their letters to Photius during the controversy in Constantinople assumed the primacy.
Emperor Basil, present at the key councils in 869 and 879-80, admitted the papal primacy.
Bishop Photius rejected Filioque, which was then just a theological opinion, not a dogma.
Bishop Photius rejected Filioque, but he conceded papal primacy of universal jurisdiction.
As Ecumenical Patriarch, he refused this practically by excommunicating Pope Nicholas.
Photius gathered a synod to declare Pope Nicholas I excommunicated for various crimes.
Time passed, harmony was restored, and Photius died in communion with Pope John VIII.

WARNING! This is an advanced website. To maximize benefit, you should
first acquire a basic and intermediate understanding of Christianity. There are
many intermediate websites. For an entry-level experience, feel free to
browse my other website: What You Should Know about ULTIMATE REALITY

"A little learning is a dangerous thing...."
--Alexander Pope

I applaud you for not allowing your heart to rule your head. This is a great temptation for many sincere seekers, and God has given you
the grace to overcome it. TRUTH is a pearl of great price. Finding it may take much time and effort, but possessing it is priceless. If
you and your wife THINK out your path very carefully, you will never regret your decision. Then your commitment will be stronger
and more stable.

The fullness of the truth is fairly easy to embrace once we know and can embrace "the church of the living God, the pillar and
foundation of truth" (First Timothy 4:15b). A perplexing paradox is to be found in the prerequisite, that is, a totally adequate glimpse of
the truth needed to find this Church. An application of the marks of the Church--one, holy, catholic, and apostolic-- easily reduces the
serious contenders to two, but then there is that fork in the road. This problem is admittedly complex, and it cannot be solved without
much praying, delving deeply into history, thinking hard, and thinking clearly.

Always read the fine print, and never allow anyone to bully your thought processes. A person who stops thinking at the convenient
moment will have little trouble living within any faith community, since truth is obviously not the main concern. Martin Luther used to
call reason "the Devil's whore," but Eastern Orthodox clerics, no less sincere, are a bit more subtle. They tell us that almost any clear,
logical thought favoring the Pope is rationalistic, all-too-Western, and unworthy of a truly pious Christian. Don't you believe it!

I myself also graduated from Moody Bible Institute. There we learned to respect the facts of the Bible and history, even though we
were exposed to only a Protestant selection of them. As we go deeper into ALL the relevant facts, though, even on some rather
complicated, thorny issues, it seems clear to me that a commitment to the Church of Rome makes good sense in a way that a
commitment to Eastern Orthodoxy does not. Roman Catholicism is truly orthodox, sound in a way Eastern Orthodoxy is not!

The best that I can do for you is to provide a rather
comprehensive list of concise THINKING points. They can help
you research what is most important, or keep your son's Orthodox
priest from overstating his case, if nothing else. Please carefully
reflect upon the following crucial lines.

Longest, loudest disputes were over Filioque (Photius) and unleavened bread (Cerularius).
Michael Cerularius objected to beardless priests who said Masses using unleavened bread.
He chided bishops who wore rings, rode horses to war, and allowed meat on Wednesdays.
The Council of Chalcedon expressly prohibited bishops participating in the battles of war.
After the excommunications in 1054, no one seemed to be aware of a widespread schism.
Humbert had no authority when he arrived, since the Pope who issued the bull had died.
If the issuing Pope had been alive, the bull would have excommunicated only one person.
This bull of excommunication and counter-excommunications were genuine barometers.
They registered the fact that the Pope did not consider Cerularius’ faith to be orthodox.
Many Orthodox scholars today do not consider Cerularius’ faith to have been Orthodox.
Rome and Constantinople kept upholding all doctrines as defined by ecumenical councils.
Only near the end of the 1100’s was papal primacy of universal jurisdiction first attacked.
Estrangement worsened after Venetian-inspired Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204.
Pope Innocent III was horrified by the depravity of the Crusaders sacking Constantinople.
The same Venetian-inspired Crusade had previously sacked a Catholic city near Dalmatia.
Taking Constantinople, not looting it, was necessary to provide these crusaders with food.
Pope Innocent IV noted a Schism 20 years after the council of Nymphaeum (1234) failed.
Patriarch John Beccus and lay theologian Demetrios Kydones worked to end the Schism.

When Eastern crowds rejected Council of Lyons II in 1274, divisiveness reached a peak.
Emperors, Patriarch John Beccus, and some prelates did not reject the doctrines of Lyons.
Some of the earliest ecumenical councils had far less freedom of discussion and decorum.
Nicephoros Blemmydas tolerated Filioque as meaning “from the Father through the Son.”
Before Patriarch Gennadius opposed the Council of Florence (1439), he accepted reunion.
It took forty-five years after this Council for Constantinople to issue its official rejection.
This occurred in 1484, only after Islam dominated Christian leadership in Constantinople.
The sultan recognized the Constantinopolitan bishop’s claim as “Ecumenical Patriarch.”
It was only after Islamic dominance that the other patriarchs recognized this claim as well.
Reunion Councils of Lyons and Florence helped the so-called Uniates to end their schism.
Many Eastern Christians who were not Uniates kept acting as if the Schism never existed.
In some cases this attitude of leaders continued into the Enlightenment (Bishop Kallistos).

Many Eastern Orthodox today do not seem disposed to formal heresy or to formal schism.
Many in Rumania, Greece, and the Ukraine shouted “Unity!” when John Paul II traveled.
Catholic leaders have opened to such the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance and Anointing.
Now and then, almost every Catholic doctrine finds an Orthodox adherent, here and there.
An ecumenical council has never condemned Roman Catholics as heretics or schismatics.
Orthodox scholars who do so rely upon private interpretations of Scripture and Tradition.
For official support they pick bishops who tend to favor their own private interpretations.
Some Orthodox bishops refuse to condemn beliefs not rejected by an ecumenical council.

The Reunion Council of Florence (1439) was convoked by an Emperor as well as a Pope.
As at the first ecumenical councils, the Emperor set the agenda of issues to be resolved.
The decrees of the Council of Florence were accepted by the Emperor and the Pope alike.
All five Patriarchs at one time accepted them, either in person or through representatives.
There is no evidence Rome ever accepted the canons and decrees of the Council at Trullo.
There is no evidence that Rome ever accepted the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon.
How do the Eastern Orthodox know that Florence is not an genuine ecumenical council?
How do they know they are not schismatics or heretics rejecting an ecumenical council?
One might expect any group of schismatics or of heretics to reject conciliar correction.
One might expect any group of schismatics or of heretics to presume they are orthodox.
How do Eastern Orthodox people know that they are not victims of this false assumption?
The Emperor lost all religious authority with the Orthodox when he agreed with the Pope!
The popular rejection of Lyons II and Florence revealed the firm limits of Caesaropapism.

Some Orthodox theologians do not reject all current acceptances of Filioque as heretical.
More and more theologians maintain that Filioque is NOT an impossible barrier to unity.
This is a far cry from Photius’ charge that the Filioque is “blasphemy against the Spirit.”
How are Orthodox ecumenical theologians able to claim to share the Faith with Photius?
For many years the East consciously maintained full communion with Filioque churches.
Is there any other major “heresy” the true Church so tolerated for almost a millennium?
Mark of Ephesus was surprised to learn that all the Latin fathers believed in the Filioque.
Since the “undivided Church” was not schizoid, Eastern Orthodoxy is less than orthodox.

For many centuries the Filioque dispute overshadowed the dispute about papal primacy.
Many Eastern Church fathers taught the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
St. Maximus the Confessor affirmed the Son’s active participation in spirating the Spirit.
Tarasius, Photius’ uncle and predecessor as Constantinopolitan Patriarch, also taught this.
He proclaimed this in his profession of faith to the other bishops at Council of Nicaea II.
Pope St. Hormisdas believed the Filioque doctrine when He decreed his famous Formula.
Was Photius unaware that Popes like Leo the Great and Gregory the Great taught this?
Photius was arguing for the wording of the Creed as Constantinople had itself created it.
This was only one step in his program to boost his own status as “Ecumenical Patriarch.”
Leo III and John VIII believed the Filioque but refused to add it offensively to the Creed.
Orthodox claims that Pope John VIII did not believe the Filioque are based on a forgery.
In 879 his legates agreed, as a matter of discipline, not to alter the Creed with additions.
In 879 his legates agreed, as a matter of doctrine, to the icon teaching of Nicaea II (787).
Excluding the Son from sharing in any way in the Spirit’s procession, Photius innovated.
This fact is even admitted by some Orthodox theologians, including Sergius Bulgakov.

Russian bishops tolerated the Filioque of Old Catholics as having an Orthodox meaning.
This means that there can be different formulations of the very same Orthodox doctrine.
The East states, “from the Father through the Son,” while the West states, “and the Son.”
Basic agreement with different emphases might manifest itself in different formulations.
Photius was right in rejecting the Son and the Father as independently spirating the Spirit.
Photius should have known via Maximus the Confessor that the West never taught this.
Catholics who become Orthodox verbally renounce man’s “false” “invention” of Filioque.
Catholic anathemas fall upon former Catholics who deliberately profess known heresies.

The Church teaches that the Father and the Son spirate the Spirit as “one principle” only.
We Catholics believe in only one spiration of the Holy Spirit, not in a double procession.
Catholics believe that the Father is the eternal Source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Since the Father alone is the Source of the Son, no double procession of the Spirit exists.
Though the Source of the Spirit is two distinct Persons, there are not two distinct sources.
A game of catch proceeds from a father and his son, but the father might initiate the game.
Accusing the west of teaching two distinct sources is “a calumny” (Council of Lyons II).
The Son receives everything from the Father alone, including power to spirate the Spirit.
The Spirit eternally receives His existence and essence from the Father through the Son.
We know Jesus’ teachings, yet He teaches us His teachings are not His own (John 12:49).
The Son spirates the Spirit, but this spiration is ultimately not His own but is the Father’s.
Catholics and Orthodox believe the three divine Persons are equal in dignity and majesty.
Photius argued that two divine Persons Who spirate Another are greater than that Other.
By this Photius meant to prove that Filioque subordinates the Spirit to the Father and Son.
Photius’ innovation within God seems to subordinate the Spirit and the Son to the Father.
Could subordinating the Son AND the Spirit be better than subordinating only the Spirit?
If so, subordination is acceptable for any divine Person but the Father, and equality is lost.
Because this rational line of argumentation proves too much, it shows its own inadequacy.

Filioque is a dogmatic way that the Holy Spirit proves that the Son is united to the Father.
Filioque is a dogmatic way that the Holy Spirit proves that the Son is equal to the Father.
Filioque is a dogmatic way of explaining why the Holy Spirit is not a Second Son of God.
Filioque is a dogmatic way of explaining how the Holy Spirit has full unity with the Son.

As the Father is the one Principle of Son and Spirit, so the Papacy secures Church unity.
Since “the Church is the icon of the Trinity,” errors about God could distort ecclesiology.
Filioque implies spiritual men are under the judgments of the bishops instituted by Christ.
Denial of Filioque implies bishops could rightly yield doctrinal judgment to spiritual men.
Christ means doctrinal orthodoxy to be determined by bishops, not Spirit-inspired monks.
Donatism results from spiritual experience becoming a pre-condition for having authority.
Symeon the New Theologian taught Spirit-filled, un-ordained men can absolve from sins.
He did not deny that worldly and corrupt priests can also give valid absolution from sins.

Since Christ’s Church is infallible, She cannot teach serious errors about the Holy Trinity.
Bishops must be in full communion with the Pope to exercise the charism of infallibility.
Christ’s head is the Father, the Pope’s head is Christ, and the Church’s head is the Pope.
The Spirit leads the Church to submit to the Pope so the Father is praised through the Son.
The Son’s greatest honor and glory is sharing in the eternal spiration of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit’s greatest mission is giving honor and glory to the Son Who spirates Him.
The greatest honor and glory the Spirit gives is His praising of the Son for spirating Him.

Spirit’s highest praise of God’s Son comes through Filioque and papacy (B. de Margerie).
In a certain sense the Holy Spirit represents Jesus Christ as part of the temporal mission.
The Spirit is not the Vicar of Christ at the expense of the papacy that Jesus established.
Doctrinal authority is not excessively spiritualized, a “vague consensus” of equal bishops.
As Divine Persons live in each other, so the universal Church lives in every local church.
This “perichoresis” implies that every bishop is meant to “make present” Peter’s headship.
Every diocese is considered to be as much the Catholic Church as the universal Church is.
Because each local church has every gift that God intends, including unity, it is “catholic.”
Unity with all other local churches gave rise to a later meaning of “catholic” as universal.
Bishops do not become “little popes” at the expense of the divinely-given papal charism.
This is because every bishop is accountable to the universal nature of Christ’s Church too.
The Pope’s universal, immediate jurisdiction over all is not at the expense of the bishops.

The Procession of the Spirit, while important, in many respects seems largely inscrutable.
How can we keep grieving the Spirit of Truth, Love, and Unity for the sake of the Spirit?
Schism is a sin against love, just as heresy is a sin against faith, and despair against hope.
The fully free and properly informed choice of formal schism or heresy is mortally sinful.
All who obey God’s Spirit desire union and abandon any appetite for sacrilegious schism.
Because we Catholics love our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters, we desire reunion.
Because we love the Eastern Orthodox, we never cease to emphasize this hoped-for unity.
Because we love the Eastern Orthodox, we seek to share our immaculate Faith with them.

Not every tradition IN Catholic or Orthodox churches is a Holy Tradition OF the Church.
The Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father is only taught in Tradition, not the Bible.
The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father, but John 15:26 is about temporal mission.
This Scripture teaches the Father “and the Son” send the Spirit on His temporal mission.
This verse is about the Father as the ultimate source of the Spirit in His temporal mission.
Either an ecumenical council misconstrued a verse’s context or Western Tradition is right.
Our Western Tradition teaches that this temporal mission mirrors the eternal procession.
What assures Eastern Orthodoxy that our tradition is wrong while their tradition is right?
Its leaders take this to be the bad fruit of the Western distortion of the Divine Simplicity.
They think Catholics fail to distinguish the Spirit’s procession from His temporal mission.

Between the times of Photius and Cardinal Humbert, the Filioque controversy died down.
Humbert reflected a fact that many Western churches since the 5th century used Filioque.
Council of Constantinople I slightly altered the Nicene Creed without adulterating Faith.
To the Nicene Creed, Constantinople I added the procession of the Spirit from the Father.
A double procession would come close to implying that the Son created the Holy Spirit.
Constantinople I subtracted one phrase, “God from God,” from the original Nicene Creed.
“God from God” is today omitted from the Creed in the official Greek text of Orthodoxy.
In today’s official Latin text of the Creed in the Catholic Church, this phrase is included.

Some Eastern Orthodox believe an ecumenical council may make alterations to the Creed.
Catholics believe whatever a true ecumenical council may do, a pope alone may also do.
This is because a true ecumenical council always requires an exercise of papal authority.
Papal authority was used to ratify conciliar decrees, which then had universal authority.
A pope alone always made all Christians able to know which councils had such authority.
A pope with divine authority to confirm infallible councils must himself also be infallible.
Like genuine ecumenical councils, popes are also only infallible in certain circumstances.
Popes are not infallible whenever they tentatively classify the ecumenicity of a council.
Pope John VIII and popes soon after him tentatively accepted the Photian council of 879.
Pope John VIII and popes soon after him tentatively rejected the Photian council of 869.
Popes are infallible whenever they definitively canonize a council as an ecumenical one.
From the eleventh century, popes canonized the Photian council of 869 to be ecumenical.
Statements of Pope Paul VI suggest that this canonization may not be an irreformable one.

Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited any Creedal additions that were also adulterations.
Councils of Chalcedon (451) and Constantinople III (680-81) reiterated this prohibition.
The Filioque, an honest historical development, was a Creedal alteration, not adulteration.
With Arianism still threatening the West, the Filioque addition was reasonable and lawful.
No Western bishops joined the 150 Eastern ones at the Council of Constantinople I (381).
The Council of Lyons declared Filioque a dogma before the Byzantine delegates arrived.
For a long time, many sincere Westerners thought that Filioque was original to the Creed.
The wide word, “procedentum,” in the Latin translation of the Creed was open to the idea.
“Ekporeuomenon,” the Greek original of “procedentum,” could not be applied to the Son.
The “Ek-“ prefix would erroneously present the Son as an originating Source of the Spirit.
The Creed in Greek asserted the Father alone as the originating Source of the Holy Spirit.
The Creed in Latin seemed only to assert the Father as the root Source of the Holy Spirit.
Viewing the Father as the root Source allowed the Son to mediate the routing of the Spirit.
Especially the Latin fathers saw this role as an active mediation rather than a passive one.
"Procedentum” allowed causation of the Spirit to flow “from the Father through the Son.”
For Latins “and the Son” made explicit what was implicit in the translation of the original.
They did not realize until much later that “and the Son” could not fit the original Greek.
The formulae of ecumenical councils are correct but might also be open to improvement.

The Creed’s original Greek teaches truth but so does the Church when it teaches Filioque.
Early Catholic leaders taught an historical error when they read Filioque into this Greek.
Visigoths were right in saying the original Creed did not connect the Son and the Spirit.
These heretics were right about the Creed but wrong in teaching their form of Arianism.
The Church could make—and did make—an historical error about a great dogmatic truth.
The Church admits this error by allowing this dogmatic truth to go unstated in the Creed.
Eastern-rite Catholics, not required to recite Filioque in the Creed, must believe its truth.
The Church can change in disciplinary matters, but She cannot change in dogmatic ones.
Frankish Church leaders condemned a distortion of the icon teaching of Nicaea II (787).
They erred in thinking Nicaea II taught this distortion, when it taught what they believed.
So on icons, Frankish leaders made another historical error about a great dogmatic truth.

At the Jerusalem Council, Peter defined the doctrine to which James added the discipline.
This discipline was added to placate an ultra-Jewish faction that trusted James’ leadership.
This proves even the ultra-Jewish faction subscribed to the Jerusalem council’s decrees.
As bishop of Jerusalem, James added an amendment to placate his special flock of Jews.
He was willing to back down on everything except traditional Jewish kosher sensibilities.
This is because Gentile converts were usually “God-fearers” with ties to local synagogues.
Modern scholars agree that this is James “the Lord’s brother,” not “the son of Alphaeus.”
None disputes that James and other presbyters shared decision-making with the Apostles.
Since this James was not one of the Twelve, he certainly did not preside over the Council.
Peter opened it, and his motion carried, with a condition added by James (von Dollinger).
Peter’s address determined the outcome of the debate, but James shaped practical matters.
James states that the Bible agrees with Peter’s words, not that Peter agrees with the Bible.
Peter’s teaching yet endures, but James’ disciplinary compromise soon ceased to function.

Some medieval forgeries reflect previous papal claims and assurance of their truthfulness.
These previous claims began on the basis of the Scriptures, not because of any forgeries.
Such forgeries reflected common beliefs and convictions and did not actually create them.
It is these long-standing beliefs and convictions that lent credibility to these falsehoods.
There is far less basis for the legend that St. Andrew founded the See of Constantinople.

The Donation of Constantine has an historical core embellished with fantastic elements.
He gave Pope Miltidates temporal goods and property, i.e., control of the Lateran Palace.
The Lateran Palace was the traditional residence (regia) of the Roman Pontifex Maximus.
Later Emperor Gratian gave Pope Damasus the Emperor’s title of “Pontifex Maximus.”
“Pontifex Maximus” was a title going all the way back to pre-Republican kings of Rome.
It designated the head of the Roman state religion and his authority to regulate religion.
After Constantine made a new capital for the Roman Empire, it stayed the Roman Empire.
To the degree Byzantium now functioned like old Rome, it could be called “New Rome.”
Imperial moving of the capital eastward forced papal keeping of law and order westward.
Maintaining law and order at all required controlling some property and temporal goods.
Not one pope before 1054 quoted the Donation of Constantine to authorize papal claims.

The False Decretals of Pseudo-Isadore (9th c.) circulated with authentic papal documents.
Forged portions of this larger collection were composed in feudal France, not papal Rome.
There is no evidence that any pope who ever relied on it knew that it contained forgeries.
As far as historians can tell, the pseudo-decretals created no new doctrines about the pope.
They made it easier for popes and bishops to maintain their independence in governance.

Reforms of Gregory VII maintained the ancient value of a Church free from State control.
In the west they took Constantine’s revolution in Church-State relations to a higher level.
The pagan State passed from beast of prey to tamed beast to domesticated beast of burden.
The Church which tamed the State now controlled it to promote goals of God’s Kingdom.

The Filioque and papal infallibility are dogmas that developed from Apostolic teachings.
While the Apostolic Deposit of faith was given “once and for all,” some dogmas develop.
Over time the Church grows in appreciation of what was “once delivered” to Her keeping.
Any Eastern Orthodox historian may bear ample witness to this fact (cf. Jaroslav Pelikan).
Some doctrines always were believed explicitly, but others went from implicit to explicit.
These must be in organic harmony with doctrines always believed everywhere and by all.
They unfold Apostolic teaching, just as the plant unfolds the seed, and the adult the child.
Doctrinal development is all within God’s plan, just as the growth of a seed or a child is.
A youth does not develop into an oak tree, and neither does an acorn develop into a man.
Similarly, the meaning of a doctrine does not change as it develops but keeps its integrity.
Such development complements universality, antiquity, and consent (Vincent of Lerins).
Even some Eastern Orthodoxy dogmas have not always been the objects of explicit faith.
These include the Son’s eternal generation, consubstantiality, and Church’s infallibility.
These also include the canonical authority of twenty-seven books in the New Testament.
These include which rites are sacraments, the hypostatic union, and Mary’s total holiness.
St. John Chrysostom preached that the Blessed Virgin Mary had a few minor moral faults.
Why should development not also be true of teachings about Church authority structures?
The nature of the Church never changes, but the Church’s own understanding of it grows.
The Bishop of Rome in the second century was everything that the Pope of today is now.
The nature of the papacy never changes, but the papacy’s own self-perception has grown.

Early popes exercised primacy (Soter, Victor, Callistus, Fabian, Stephen, Dionysius, etc.).
They rarely focused on this because Christ exhorted all Church leaders to show humility.
Over time Peter’s special vocation and Christ’s promises would unfold in his successors.
The manner and methods of exercising Peter’s primacy would become clearer and clearer.

Every definitive Church teaching is true and always will be taught to be true in meaning.
Its meaning cannot change as time passes, but greater insight into this meaning can occur.
Challenges of heresy often stimulate deeper and clearer thinking about truths of doctrine.
Greater faith insights and heretical challenges do not stop, so why should development?

“Sobernost ecclesiology” is a recent development democratizing the Church’s infallibility.
The power of love is not the only authority the Church manifests in Her life in the Spirit.
Orthodoxy today needs NEW ways of thinking and acting to solve its pressing problems.
Widespread use of the Gregorian Calendar instead of the Julian is a confusing innovation.
Overlapping jurisdictions of autocephalous churches are a recent and tragic development.
This chaos happened because Orthodoxy too long left its external life to State regulation.
This chaos also happened because Orthodoxy long left its external life to ethnic concerns.
Protestants easily notice that Eastern Orthodox theology is neither primitive nor modern.
Any real distinction between God’s essence and His uncreated energies is a development.
Eastern Orthodoxy has arbitrarily canonized such developments of the Byzantine Period.
This has had a few good consequences, including gloriously regal liturgical celebrations.
(Although Roman liturgy is not nearly as ornate, its simplicity serves evangelical clarity.)
All liturgy participates in the glorious eternal worship of the saints and angels in Heaven.
Eastern Orthodoxy is like a malnourished child whose growth in height has been stunted.
Eastern Orthodoxy is “like the mustard seed” that grew into a plant with stunted branches.

All contraception and divorce have never been “believed always, everywhere, and by all.”
Constantinople as an Apostolic see has not been believed always, everywhere and by all.
The Pentarchy of five equal Patriarchs was a Byzantine invention promoted by Emperors.
Re-baptism, re-chrismation, and re-ordination were not universal practices of the ancients.
Triple immersion and fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays were ancient but not universal.
Denying that unleavened bread can become the Body of Christ violates ancient practices.
Roman, Armenian and Syrian Churches avoided leaven as did Jesus at the Last Supper!
Giving the Pope a primacy of mere honor was not believed always, everywhere and by all.
Stripping the Son of any role in the Spirit’s procession also fails to pass St. Vincent’s test.

What guarantees the truth of an “orthodoxy” which puts the faith of every Pope on trial?
No ecumenical council has declared Catholic baptisms and confirmations not to be such.
No ecumenical council has ever prohibited the use of unleavened bread in Divine Liturgy.
Orthodoxy opposed to a papal primacy safeguarding its integrity is an unstable system.

Purgatory is NOT a serious obstacle to reunion with Eastern Orthodox (Mark of Ephesus).
Catholics and Orthodox agree the Mass, prayers, alms and other pious acts help the dead.
They agree that there are some Christian souls in a middle state between heaven and hell.
Ancient Eastern liturgies, including that of St. John Chrysostom, bear witness to this fact.
Mark of Ephesus denied that all are judged immediately after death (particular judgment).
Mark denied that the middle state of purification is distinct from the state of the wicked.
He denied that the Christian dead are experiencing a purifying fire or punishment for sin.
Their shame, regret, confinement, darkness and pain are never punishments for their sins.
Traditionally Catholics emphasize legal metaphors while Orthodox stress medicinal ones.
The New Testaments stress on judgment according to works “justifies” legal metaphors.
The Catholic doctrine of indulgences is an Easter parade of notions alien to Orthodoxy—
legal metaphors + temporal punishments + papal primacy + treasury of merit + purgatory.
Legal metaphors have been the normative ones in Catholic theology until quite recently.
The ability of Catholic theology to think in other biblical categories is one of its strengths.
Mark also denied that the wicked experience hell fire before they resurrect from the dead.
Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor taught a purifying fire for dead ones.
Origen influenced such men, but North African Christians taught this before Origen did.
In the west, Ambrose, Augustine, Caesarius of Arles, and Gregory the Great taught it too.
None of the Church Fathers from the first eight centuries taught against this purifying fire.
The Confession of Dositheos (1672), an Orthodox confession, teaches a Catholic afterlife.
No ecumenical council has ever declared any aspect of a Catholic afterlife to be in error.
Will Catholics share the same afterlife with Orthodox if they have differing soteriologies?

No ecumenical council has ever declared any aspect of Catholic Mariology to be in error.
Mary’s Immaculate Conception is NO serious obstacle to reunion with Eastern Orthodox.
The dogma is relatively new, but it is the definitive teaching of an ancient Apostolic truth.
Like Photius, Emperor Manuel Paleologos, living in Paris, judged this doctrine to be true.
George Scholarios and Demetrios Kydones believed in Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
St. Peter Mohila’s anti-Western Academy of Kiev taught her exemption from original sin.
Dimitri of Rostov, author of “Lives of the Saints,” believed the Immaculate Conception.
Gregory Palamas taught Mary’s ancestors were progressively purified to prepare for her.
Catholics teach nothing about the holiness of Mary’s ancestors, except that of her parents.
Theologian Nicholas Koursoulas wrote six pages defending the Immaculate Conception.
Even the anti-Catholic Greek theologian Elias Meniates preached this Conception as true!
To share a Catholic understanding of the teaching is not to be heretical (Bishop Kallistos).
Orthodoxy believes that Mary was always “all-holy,” from the first moment of existence.
This trait makes her as much “an exception” to our race as freedom from original sin does.
It is impossible for an all-holy God to unite Himself to the womb of a woman not all-holy.
Eastern Orthodoxy agrees with Catholicism in these positive formulations of the teaching.
As a statement about original sin, Orthodoxy tends not to follow the negative formulation.

Most Eastern Orthodox believe that NO human being inherits the guilt of the original sin.
This means that original sin does NOT kill the soul, but that the body inherits corruption.
Catholics believe God is displeased with our human nature as we received it at our births.
This iniquity of our human nature is not strictly equivalent to the guilt of Adam and Eve.
Damage from the sin committed by Adam comes down to us through our inherited nature.
For several Orthodox theologians, this results from generation through sexual intercourse.
Therefore, the only way to avoid original sin is to be born virginally, which Mary was not.
Original sin brings to us suffering, sickness, disorder, and death, and the devil’s dominion.
Pelagianism caused the western Church to study the meaning of original sin more deeply.
Human nature born deprived of divinizing grace is alienated from the Thrice-Holy God.

Unless the original sin taints human nature with guilt, the devil’s dominion is an enigma!
If Mary knew suffering, sickness, and death, was she ever under the dominion of Satan?
Despite Genesis 3:15, Eastern Orthodoxy uncomfortably tolerates this strange possibility.
This dominion might exist up to the Annunciation (Nicephoros Callistos Xanthopoulos).
This dominion would make Mary less holy than newly-created Adam, Eve and the angels.
This makes endless liturgical waves of laud and honor for the “All Holy” hard to explain.

Jesus Christ, not Mary, shed His blood on the cross for the life and salvation of the world.
Jesus Christ, not Mary, gave His life as a ransom for the forgiveness of the sins of many.
Jesus Christ, not Mary, emptied Hades of its just captives and led them forth to Paradise.
Jesus Christ, not Mary, has become the First-fruits of all the faithful who sleep in death.
Jesus Christ, not Mary, will come again to judge all living and all those who have died.
Second-century Church leaders taught Jesus is the New Adam, and Mary is the New Eve.
Mary cooperated to bring about the redemption of the world by consenting with her Fiat.
Mary’s cooperation allowed God the Son to become a human being while remaining God.
Mary made it possible for our salvation to take place as a mysterious exchange of natures.
Eve’s acts encouraged Adam’s Fall, just as Mary’s acts encouraged Christ’s Atonement.
At the Cross, Mary’s suffering and commitment to God encouraged her Son to bear it all.
Her sufferings there pleased God, but Christ’s sufferings were infinitely pleasing to Him.
Just as Eve played a role in bringing about our condemnation, so Mary helped to save us.
Catholics use private revelations to confirm truth, but definitions are never based on them.
Does Mary appear only to Catholic children or well-disciplined Eastern Orthodox monks?

Palamism MAY BE one serious obstacle to reunion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
This is because it is firmly entrenched on Mount Athos as needed for spiritual perfection.
There is some hope because no ecumenical council has approved these unique teachings.
Palamism is not official Eastern Orthodox dogma binding on all autocephalous churches.
Archbishop Gregory Palamas is widely celebrated liturgically as champion of Orthodoxy.
Many leaders within Eastern Orthodoxy view anyone who denies Palamism as a heretic.
These men often have slightly contradictory understandings of Gregory Palamas’ thought.
Palamism has long held a virtual monopoly within Greece because of its political appeals.
It promotes Greek hegemony in Orthodox theology while distancing Roman Catholicism.
Some leading Orthodox theologians have always opposed this perspective on spirituality
(Barlaam, Gregory Akindynos, Isaac Agyros, John Kyparssiotes, Demetrios Kydones).
In the 1769 revision of the Synodikon, the Russian Church removed Palamistic elements.
Today the neo-Palamite school of theology has much influence within Eastern Orthodoxy.
Much of this neo-hesychastic spirituality is, in the Philokalia, mixed with old hesychasm.

Gregory Palamas taught the reality of a physical consciousness of grace (light of Tabor).
He seemed to TEACH a real distinction in God in addition to that of the three Hypostases.
(If he MEANT only a conceptual distinction, then he was not rejecting God’s simplicity).
Palamas talked about God having an essence, a supraessence and a superessential essence.
He distinguished between God’s uncreated energies and His remote, unknowable essence.
Palamites assert he unfolds teachings of the Cappadocians and of Maximus the Confessor.
No ecumenical council ever taught Palamas’ distinction between essence and energies.
Unlike Palamas, the three Cappadocians taught what is called God’s energy is indivisible.
He denied that any of the Divine Persons are actually dwelling within holy human souls.
Uncreated energies, which shone around Jesus at the Transfiguration, divinize our souls.
To “participate in the divine nature” means sharing in God’s outer being, not inner being.
How can this fit the idea that there is greater intimacy with God under the new covenant?
Catholics seem not to hold to a real doctrine of divinization since they have created grace.
The truth: the Persons indwell us (uncreated grace) and this causes effects (created grace).
Catholicism teaches a real doctrine of divinization because the Divine Persons indwell us.
(In John 14:20, 14:23, Jesus Christ spoke of both the Father and the Son indwelling us!)
No ecumenical council has ever taught that created grace is incompatible with orthodoxy.
Palamas taught that the Transfiguration did not change Jesus; it only changed perceptions.
Palamas taught that the Transfiguration opened the disciples’ eyes to Jesus’ abiding glory.
Because Christ’s body never changed yet was always glorious, was it always impassible?
If Jesus Christ suffered and died in a glorified body, was His suffering unreal? (docetism)
The truth: the ever-present glory of the Word temporarily changed His passible humanity.
(John Chrysostom and Andrew of Crete taught Christ’s divinity did this to His humanity.)
All agree that the light of Tabor is worthy of adoration, because it is the light of Divinity.
No ecumenical council ruled that “the light of Tabor” occurred more than once in history.
For Palamas, Christ dwells in accessible light, not “inaccessible Light” (1 Timothy 6:16).
Catholics and Orthodox agree that Christ’s light is accessible to some but not to others.

An orthodox Catholic might embrace many but not every Palamite theological conviction.
Palamas denied that God’s grace elevates all saints in heaven to see God in His essence.
The Catholic Church teaches an understanding of the Beatific Vision that is irreformable.
The Reunion Council of Florence deliberately defined this dogma against the Palamites.
All the saints in heaven see the whole God, as He is, but not fully, as He knows Himself.
Theosis is an eternal process of communing more and more with God without exhaustion.
They see His essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face (Pope Benedict XII).
Some Orthodox Confessions (of Dositheos and of Peter Mohila) agree with this dogma.

The Catholic Church promotes an understanding of God’s simplicity that is irreformable.
No ecumenical council has ever defined any plurality within God except the Triune Persons.
The belief that all of God is NOT included in the Divine Essence appears to be nonsense.
To know God’s essence is totally unknowable is to know something about that essence!
To know God’s essence is not his uncreated energies is also to know something about it!

The Catholic Church does not assert the infallibility of every idea in her Church Fathers.
Eastern Orthodoxy does not assert the infallibility of every concept in its Church Fathers.
St. Athanasius may have taught a real distinction between God’s essence and His actions.
St. Augustine may have taught a double-source Filioque with the Father as chief spirator.
St. Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas did not teach the Immaculate Conception dogma.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux also developed theological thoughts that contradict this dogma.
These saints contradicted the doctrine before it was taught to be irreformable by the Pope.
Some who pioneered the theology of the Immaculate Conception are not canonized saints.
Are all who pioneered crucial distinctions within Orthodox theology honored as saints?

Understanding papacy is THE fundamental question hampering reunion (G. Florovsky).
Questions about papacy are THE most perplexing issues requiring dialogue (O. Clement).

THE END.