Roman Catholicism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy: Papal Dogmas
““The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him
as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent…But neither let him (who is
the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be
glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.””
““We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks Ex
Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in
virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be
held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed
Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine
concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves,
and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.””
Perhaps the most obvious difference between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism is that Roman Catholics follow the Pope of Rome, whereas Orthodox Christians do not. Yet this description needs elaboration; for the first millennium of Christian history, both Eastern and Western Christendom agreed that the Pope of Rome was the highest-ranking bishop in the Church and held the authority to adjudicate disputes between bishops that could otherwise not be resolved. (3) Both East and West likewise agreed that Rome held a special primacy, place of honor, and authority in the Church due to it being the historic capital of the Roman Empire and the place where Saints Peter and Paul, the two pre-eminent apostles, were martyred. (4) However, while Rome certainly held a place of great importance in the early centuries of the Church, this was always an authority conceived of as being within the Church and not above the Church; that is, the Pope was understood as being the first and preeminent bishop of the Church and not having an authority that is somehow separate from the rest of the Church’s members. Such an ecclesiological principle is laid out clearly in Apostolic Canon 34, which states that the Metropolitan (head bishop of a region) may not do anything without the consent of the bishops under him, nor may the bishops under him do anything without the consent of their Metropolitan. (1) Such a principle likewise applied to the major bishops of the entire Church – the Pope of Rome and other high-ranking bishops of the Church (i.e., the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) operated in such harmony. The lower-ranking Patriarchs recognized the Pope as their head with the Pope likewise being responsible to the lower-ranking Patriarchs.
This understanding in the West slowly began to shift over time, with the Pope of Rome slowly accruing more political and ecclesiological power in Western lands. The differences in understanding of the function of the Pope in East and West came to a head in the 9th century, when Pope Nicholas of Rome refused to recognize the election of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople, triggering a temporary schism between Rome and Constantinople. (5) While Rome and Constantinople would re-enter into Eucharistic communion after a few years, a schism that lasts up until this day would later occur in the 11th century over the issue of the addition of the filioque to the Creed. (6) While a dogmatic difference on papal authority had not yet developed between East and West at the time of St. Photios or at the time of the Great Schism, the seeds of such a difference were clearly already present, with the West understanding the Pope as having authority over the other Patriarchs as opposed to an authority within and as the head of the other Patriarchs.
This difference in views of the papacy continued to develop after the 11th century, when East and West were no longer in communion, culminating in the teaching of the First Vatican Council in the late 19th century. (7) The First Vatican Council teaches that the Pope of Rome can issue infallible dogma on faith and morals by his own divinely granted authority as the successor of Peter:
“Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable… the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church…he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.” (2)
Needless to say, this is a far cry from the practice and teaching of the early Church as instantiated in the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, commonly agreed upon as authoritative dogma by both Catholics and Orthodox. The Ecumenical Councils have, at times, declared a Pope of Rome to be a heretic (cf. Pope Honorius’ condemnation at the Sixth Ecumenical Council [8] ) and denied the Pope’s authority as being above that of an Ecumenical Council (cf. Pope Vigilius at the Fifth Ecumenical Council [9] ). A theological commission sponsored by the Vatican has likewise concluded that “the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East [in the first millennium].” (10) To put it bluntly: Papal infallibility and universal authority were not the beliefs of the early Church.
The next installment will look in depth at the filioque and the differences this creates between Orthodox Christian and Roman Catholic Trinitarian theology.
1: From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Quoted from New Advent
2: Quoted from Papal Encyclicals Online
3: See, for example, canon 3 of the Council of Sardica: “But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honor the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighboring provinces and let him appoint arbiters…” From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Quoted from New Advent
4: See, for example, canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and any Byzantine hymnography about St. Peter. The Apolytikion for the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul calls them, “Preeminent Apostles and teachers of the universe” (Οἱ τῶν Ἀποστόλων πρωτόθρονοι, καὶ τῆς οἰκουμένης διδάσκαλοι). See more hymnography for the feast in Matins for June 29
5: For a historical summary, see the Wikipedia page about Photios of Constantinople
6: See Encyclopedia Britannica for a summary of the East-West Schism (“Great Schism”) of 1054 AD
7: See Encyclopedia Britannica for a summary of the First Vatican Council
8: See the Wikipedia article about Pope Honorius of Rome
9: See Seraphim Hamilton’s video, “The Fifth Ecumenical Council Contradicts Vatican 1”
10: It should be noted that this document, however, does not hold any dogmatic authority for Catholics, but is rather only the statement of an official Vatican dialogue with the Orthodox Church. See the Chieti Document, 2016
