Basic Points of Difference between

the Orthodox Church and Papism

By the Reverend Metropolitan of Nafpaktos,
His Eminence Hierotheos Vlachos

Translated from Greek by Fr. Patrick B. OGrady


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 Christs 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 Gods 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 worlds 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.


Source:
http://themata-orthodoxias.blogspot.gr/2014/03/basic-points-of-difference-
between.html