Against Neo-Papism

Nikolaos Mannis

 Source: Τιμητικός Τόμος Διονυσίου Μ. Μπατιστάτου, Athens, 2024, pp. 247-255.

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

(Isaiah 14:12-14)

 

 

If we wanted to give a short definition of the concept “Papism” it would be: Papism is the conversion of Christianity into “Anti-Christianity” through the beheading of Christ. And indeed, the Luciferian arrogance of the Bishop of Rome who placed himself at the Head of the Church, instead of Christ, through the theories of Papal Supremacy and Papal Primacy, led to this blasphemous conversion.

True Christians, Christians whose behavior and heart reflect Jesus Christ, did not accept this “Anti-Christianity” conversion which the Bishop of Rome promoted. Why? Is it because true Christians had personal issues with the Bishop of Rome? No, not at all. In fact, true Christians would not have accepted any Bishop daring to usurp the place of Christ, Bishop of Rome, or Bishop of Constantinople or Bishop of Jerusalem. True Christians reject anyone who attempts to remove Christ from His place at the Head of Church, because he is a type of the Antichrist.

This has been clarified by the Saints in the past and in the present.

Specifically in the 6th century, St Gregory the Great, found unacceptable the literal meaning of the title “Ecumenical” i.e., “Universal” attributed to Patriarch. St Gregory the Great wrote: “...the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13), regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord’s body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul (ib.)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all? Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High (Isaiah 14:13)”. [1] And elsewhere: “If then any one in that Church takes to himself that name, whereby he makes himself the head of all the good, it follows that the Universal Church falls from its standing (which God forbid), when he who is called Universal falls”. [2] The reason for this refusal is that it contradicts the Bible, which teaches us that Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1:22), “Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (Ephesians 5:23) and “he is the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18). And below: “Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others”. [3]

In the 20th century St. Sophrony (Sakharov) pointed out in the same way of thinking: “Fighting against neo-papism that has appeared in the bowels of our Holy Church, we are fighting only for the truth in the ecclesiastical and eternal sense of the word. We reject any “Rome”, both the First, and the Second, and the Third, if we are talking about introducing the principle of subordination into the existence of our Church. We reject Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, London, Paris, New York, and any other papism as an ecclesiological heresy that distorts Christianity”. [4]

Of course, the followers of Papism do not admit that they behead Jesus Christ. They claim that they accept Jesus Christ as head but in heaven, while in the Church on earth the head of the Church is the Pope as “Vicar of Christ”...

But, as St. Macarius of Patmos (+1737) points out, [5] this view is also unacceptable because it breeds the following blasphemies:

1. That when Christ was on earth, he had all authority, but when he was taken up, he lost it.

2. That the incarnation caused great harm to Christ, because before he was born, he was king of heaven and earth, but when he was incarnated, the Pope took the kingdom of the earth from him.

3. If a man (such as a Pope or a Patriarch) and not Christ, is the head of the Church on earth, then a great loss follows in the Body of the Church because it lacks such a head, almighty, all-wise, forecaster of the future, all-merciful, as Christ is and the Church is condemned to have a head which is perishable, weak, mortal and other which come from the wretched state of human nature.

4. If Christ, Who now is in heaven with His flesh, does not rule over the earth, nor when He was on earth did He rule over heaven, because that which hinders Him now, also hindered Him then.

This is why true Christians believe that it is impossible for the Church to have a mortal man as its head because it needs a Head that will always live, always give life and always sanctify.

Those who believe that a man, such as the Pope, can be the head of the Church then have to ask themselves: what happens when this “head” dies? Does the Church die with him and resurrect after the ordination of the next Pope?

And if someone hypothetically answers that for that time the Head of the Church on earth is Christ, then one cannot help but wonder: that is, Christ must will beg, when will the Pope die so that he becomes the Head of the Church on earth for a while, while when the new Pope is ordained, he will be sorry because lost His authority? What nonsense is this!

Unfortunately, this anti-Christian and irrational heresy has been adopted in recent years by the Patriarch of Constantinople, leading many fathers and teachers of the Church to criticize this danger, which they call Neo-Papism.

The Neo-Papism is essentially a copy of the Papism: decapitation of Christ and placing in His place, as head, a mortal human, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who prefers the title “Ecumenical Patriarch”, in which title he gives a wrong meaning.

The followers of Neo-Papism constantly declare that the Patriarch of Constantinople is “first without equal” (Archbishop Elpidophoros of America), is “the head of the Orthodox” (Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria), is “the head of the earthly Church” (Metropolitan Efstathios of Sparta), is “the Primate of Orthodoxy, the visible sign of its Unity and the guarantee of the normally functioning institution that we call the ‘Orthodox Church” (Protopresbyter George Tsetis), is “the head of the Orthodoxy under heaven” (Panagiotis Andriopoulos) etc.

Bishop Ioannis Zizioulas of Pergamum had already tried to justify theologically, from an “orthodox” point of view, this anti-Christian Primacy. Claiming that the Holy Trinity is “the primacy of God the Father” (a position which even the papists did not dare to express), he tried to establish a kind of episcopocentrism that changes the purely Christ-centered character of the Church, since it establishes its unity “in the person of the bishop” and not Christ. This is a heresy that contradicts the teachings of the holy fathers. [6]

It is clear that some Orthodox (?) theologians are trying to secure theologically the Primacy for the Ecumenical Patriarch so that after the planned union with the Papists, the Orthodox will now more easily accept the primacy of the Pope...

Unfortunately, the most important representative of Neo-Papism today is the Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos. With an article on the internet in June 2019, he tries to establish the Neo-Papism of Constantinople by writing:

“The Ecumenical Patriarch, as first-throne patriarch, has certain duties, which in practice all the Orthodox Churches have recognized as his. Among these is that he presided at the Second Ecumenical Council and at later Ecumenical Councils”. [7]

However, this is not correct, because:

1. The first president of the Second Ecumenical Council was Bishop of Antioch St. Meletius. And only after his death, the Bishop of Constantinople, St. Gregory the Theologian, was elected president. [8]

2. In the Third Ecumenical Council, Nestorius of Constantinople not only did not preside, but was the main accused. In this Synod (which finally deposed Nestorius) the Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, was the president. [9]

3. In the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Legates of the Pope of Rome Leo were the presidents. [10].

4. At the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which anathematized, among others, four Patriarchs of Constantinople in a row!) the Legates of the Pope of Rome again held the presidency. [11]

5. Therefore, the only Ecumenical Synods, after the Second, presided over by Constantinople were the Fifth (St. Eutychius) and the Seventh (St. Tarasius).

Continuing, Metropolitan Ierotheos writes that the Patriarch of Constantinople “granted not only the tomoi of autocephaly, but also patriarchal dignity and honour, to all the newer Churches, from the Church of Russia until today”. But that’s not right either!

It is known from ecclesiastical history that in 1589 the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremias II Tranos irregularly granted the patriarchal value to the Church of Russia (giving it the third place) and appointed the Metropolitan Job of Moscow as Patriarch. It is known, however, that many enlightened Hierarchs reacted to this arbitrary act, such as Bishop Ierotheos of Monemvasia and St. Meletios Pegas (Patriarch of Alexandria), who knew that according to orthodox ecclesiology only the Ecumenical Synod grants Patriarchal values and honors. Ierotheos of Monemvasia was the first to react and “says specifically to the patriarch: my lord, this cannot be done, because the great Constantine with an ecumenical council made the patriarchates; and the great Justinian with an ecumenical council (the fifth) made Ohrid an Archbishopric, and made Jerusalem (for the Passions of Christ), Patriarchate”. [12]

Patriarch Jeremiah, in his attempt to legitimize his arbitrary act, convened an endemic Synod in May 1590 in Constantinople (which assigned the Patriarchal Volume to the Church of Russia, ranking it in fifth place), which was also attended by the Patriarchs of Antioch Joachim, Sophronius of Jerusalem and eighty-one more Bishops! [13]

Despite this, the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Meletios Pegas reacted and demanded the convocation of an ecumenical (Pan-Orthodox) Council. In his letter to Jeremiah of Constantinople in 1591, he writes the following important points, which are a catapult against the positions of every supporter of Neo-Papism: “regarding the elevation of the Moscow Metropolis to a Patriarchate, you must not forget that this is the responsibility of not one A Patriarch (unless the New Rome wants to follow the Old) but a Synod and indeed an Ecumenical Synod; in this way the Patriarchates up until now have also been raised. For this you have to take into account the rest of your brothers, and indeed of all without exception (as the Fathers defined in the Third Ecumenical Council) to decide what will happen. For it is evident that no patriarchal throne is subject to another patriarchal throne, but they are all connected in the Catholic Church”. [14]

The Pan-Orthodox Synod finally took place in 1593 and conferred patriarchal value on the Church of Russia, ranking it fifth.

Therefore, in all subsequent newer Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches (i.e., after of 1593), the Patriarchal values and honors and the autocephalies were given temporarily and, as everyone admits, they are in reference (“ad referendum”) to the Ecumenical Council.

So, there are no “exceptional privileges and duties” of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as claimed by the devotees of Neo-Papism. The only Primacy recognized by the Church of Christ is the completely formal Primacy of honor, based on which the Primate (according to Makarios of Ankara) simply presides at the Divine Liturgy, sits in the first place, speaks and gives his opinion first, puts his signature first and his name pronounced first in Diptychs! in other words, nothing to do with the “privileges” that the neo-papists and the advocates of the “Primacy of power” want to recognize for him!

All the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church reject Monarchy in administration.

As an example, let’s remember St. Theodore the Studite who called the body of the Church “five-headed” (πεντακόρυφον), [15] because it is governed by the five Patriarchates.

The famous canonist Theodore Valsamon, bishop of Antioch, states more graphically that the five Patriarchates are “like the five senses that are led by one head (Jesus Christ) and are equal to each other”. [16]

St. Nicodemus of Mount Athos, responding to those who, by misinterpreting the Canons, consider that the Patriarch of Constantinople is the superior judge in the Church, since he correctly interprets the relevant Canons, he characteristically writes concluding: “The Patriarch of Constantinople is the superior judge exclusively of the High Priests who are under his jurisdiction and not of the High Priests who are subordinate to the other Patriarchs. Because only the Ecumenical Council - no one else! - is the last and common Judge of all the Patriarchs”. [17]

Another proof against Neo-Papism is that at no time in the past did any Patriarchate have unlimited jurisdiction. On the contrary, the territorial boundaries of the Patriarchates were clearly defined by decisions of Ecumenical Synods.

Summarizing, we conclude that the only way to deal with the rising Neo-Papism in the east is to emphasize the value of the Ecumenical Council (a truly Orthodox Ecumenical Council, of course, and not a bad imitation organized by secular forces) and to work all Orthodox in favor of its convening, as soon as possible with the help of God.

 

NOTES

1. Registrum Epistolarum, Book V, Letter 18.

2. Ibid, Letter 20.

3. Ib., Book IV, Letter 33.

4. Vestnik of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate, 1950, No. 2-3, p. 31.

5. In his book “Evangeliki Salpinx”, published in the middle of the 18th century in Leipzig. The book was first published in Venice in 1752, but the papists collected almost all copies of this edition and burned them!

6. “The unity of the Church is not founded and does not consist in one person of one of the apostles, but in the person of Our Savior Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Church” (St. Nectarios of Aegina, A Historical Study of the Causes of the Schism, Athens, 1911, p. 69).

7. https://www.parembasis.gr/index.php/5809-2019-07-01a

8. St. Nectarios of Pentapolis, The Ecumenical Councils, Athens 1892, p. 83.

9. Ibid, p. 95.

10. Ibid, p. 112.

11. Vasileios Stephanides, Ecclesiastical History, 2nd ed., Athens 1959, p. 224.

12. Constantine Sathas, Biographical Plan of Patriarch Jeremiah II, Athens 1870, p. 21.

13. Kallinikos Delikanis, Patriarchal Documents, vol. 3, Constantinople 1905, p. 24-26.

14. Methodiοs Fouyias, Epistles of Meletios Pegas, “Ekklesiastikos Pharos” 52 [1970], p. 232.

15. PG 99, 1280, 1417. 16 B. Kalliphronos, Ekklesiastika, Constantinople 1867, p. 106-107.

17. Footnote to Canon IX of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.