Refutation of the papal doctrine by a nineteenth century French Catholic writer

[Cyprian]

Abbe Guettee was originally a French Catholic, who set out to write a history of the church in France. In the course of his researches, which extended into the earliest periods of church history, he discovered that the roots of the papacy, as known in the Medieval and later church, lay not in the early Christian period, but rather in the time of Charlemagne's ascendancy and later. This power grab by the bishop of Rome, combined with the political power grab of the Frankish nobility, violated the historical structure of the universal church, leading finally to the schism with the other four ancient patriarchs in 1054.
In early Christian ecclesiology, the bishop of Rome was considered a "first among equals" among the other bishops, responsible for a certain leadership of the church, but in no way "above" the others, in the sense of being the source of correct doctrine or being able to unilaterally overrule the college of bishops. Furthermore, this primacy was granted not on account of some mythical descendancy from the apostle Peter (all the early succession lists of the various bishoprics of the Christian world started with some figure other than an apostle. In the early Christian world, there was no confusion between an apostle and a bishop), but on the basis of the principle of accomodation to the political realities of the empire. This is explicitly stated in the first canon law to refer to the primacy of Rome. Furthermore, when Constantinople was elevated to second position at the Council of Chalcedon, the same reason was given, that it was the new Imperial City.
The first ecclesiastical author to use the concept of the descent of a bishop from the apostle Peter was St. Cyprian in the third century. However, this descent was seen as occurring in the case of every bishop. Just as St. Peter was the one head of the apostolic college, so each bishop is the one head of his community. As St. Cyprian states, "The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole."
However, as the Petrine doctrine spread in Western Europe, and came to be applied solely to the bishop of Rome, another factor became prominent, the rise of the Franks, with their "Holy Roman" empire in Western Europe. As the Franks began to place their own candidates in the Roman cathedra, Rome began to drift heavily away from the universal church. This was often under direct Frankish political pressure. Earlier Roman popes resisted this pressure, rejecting the insertion of the filioque into the Nicene Creed, one even going so far as to have the original creed inscribed on plaques in the cathedral. However, as the Franks took power, this began to change. Pope Nicholas not only unilaterally changed the creed, but excommunicated the holy patriarch Photios of Constantinople for resisting this innovation. However, the next pope drew back from this stance, condemning the filioque, rejecting papal supremacy and being reconciled to St. Photios. However, this reconciliation was later rejected by the German bishops of the "11th century reformation", who considered the earlier council condemning Photios as authoritative. Thus a second wave of reform and centralization, again under Franko-German influence, finally drew Rome irrevocably away from the true church.
See the original here http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Lks/AbGu/AbGu.htm

[Petr]

I don't see the link...


Petr

[Cyprian]

I don't see the link...


PetrFixed, thanks for the heads up

[Petr]

However, as the Petrine doctrine spread in Western Europe, and came to be applied solely to the bishop of Rome, another factor became prominent, the rise of the Franks, with their "Holy Roman" empire in Western Europe.
Fyodor Dostoevsky, perhaps the best known Orthodox writer to criticize Roman Catholicism, was quite unapologetic about this connection he saw between Roman imperial ideology and the rise of Catholicism:

(From The Idiot)

The Roman Catholic believes that the Church on earth cannot stand without universal temporal Power. He cries 'non possumus!' In my opinion the Roman Catholic religion is not a faith at all, but simply a continuation of the Roman Empire, and everything is subordinated to this idea--beginning with faith. The Pope has seized territories and an earthly throne, and has held them with the sword. And so the thing has gone on, only that to the sword they have added lying, intrigue, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, swindling;--they have played fast and loose with the most sacred and sincere feelings of men;--they have exchanged everything--everything for money, for base earthly power!
http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/idiot/45/


Petr

[Boleslaw]

Fyodor Dostoevsky, perhaps the best known Orthodox writer to criticize Roman Catholicism, was quite unapologetic about this connection he saw between Roman imperial ideology and the rise of Catholicism:

(From The Idiot)


http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/idiot/45/


Petr
Much as I admire Dostovesky, those remarks are BS. Almost everything he said more easily applies to Byzantium and even the "Third Rome" than it ever could to the Papacy.

Thankfully his friend Vladimir Soloviev gave a more fair-minded assestment of Catholicism.

[Cyprian]

Much as I admire Dostovesky, those remarks are BS. Almost everything he said more easily applies to Byzantium and even the "Third Rome" than it ever could to the Papacy.

Thankfully his friend Vladimir Soloviev gave a more fair-minded assestment of Catholicism.If by "fair-minded" you mean slavish, then yes. As to Dostoevsky's comment, the comparison is unbalanced. No intelligent person would question that Byzantium was a continuation of the Roman empire; it never presented itself as being anything else. The difference is that Byzantium was a political unit. The religious hierarchy was separate from the imperial, according to the doctrine of church-state relations set out in St. Justinian's Novel (decree). The common term "caesaropapism" is quite inaccurate in describing the religio-political situation of the Eastern empire. Although sometimes the emperors encroached on ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the clergy and people repulsed such incursions at key moments, like the Iconoclastic controversy and the proposed union with Rome in the fifteenth century. As the Eastern patriarchs wrote to the non-jurors, "With us the entire people is the guardian of the faith." At no time in the East was there a "pope" figure, who claimed complete jurisdiction in both secular and religious matters, as the medieval popes did, going so far as to manoeuvre various kingdoms into becoming vassalages of the papacy, engaging in a murderous policy to wipe out the Hohenstaufen dynasty, and later fomenting treason against legitimate Protestant rulers. Religious persecution is of course familiar to the Christian East, but this type of excess is entirely foreign, entirely Roman.

[Boleslaw]

If by "fair-minded" you mean slavish, then yes.

Oh yes, noting the many postive aspects of Catholic tradition and stressing the importance of greater unity between the Churches(Catholic and Orthodox). Yes, that sounds slavish to me. :rolleyes:



The difference is that Byzantium was a political unit. The religious hierarchy was separate from the imperial, according to the doctrine of church-state relations set out in St. Justinian's Novel (decree).

The bad habit of Orthodoxy, and getting back to Soloviev he made this point many times, is to become overly subvervient to secular authority. Whether it be in Byzantium, Tsarist Russia, or even the Soviet Union(which even many Russian emigres constantly condemned the Church for).

[Cyprian]

Oh yes, noting the many postive aspects of Catholic tradition and stressing the importance of greater unity between the Churches(Catholic and Orthodox). Yes, that sounds slavish to me. :rolleyes: If this "greater unity" is to be bought at the price of subservience to the pope, then yes it is slavish. To have any union with an organization headed by someone claiming infallibility and (even if these claims are hushed up now), complete jurisdiction in both secular and spiritual spheres, cannot but be slavish. Bulgakov was much more balanced than Soloviev in his appreciation of Catholicism. He compared the Roman church to a beautiful garden hidden under a hideous dome, the garden being the best of spiritual life within the Roman confession, especially as represented in some of the great "mystics" of the West, the dome being the mass of papal dogmas that, with their worldliness and authoritarianism, obscure this spiritual life. Any history of medieval Catholicism will show this contrast quite sharply, as great spiritual figures like Richard of St. Victor, Bonaventure and the author of the Cloud of Unknowing, by their very holiness, condemn the powerlust of the popes.
The bad habit of Orthodoxy, and getting back to Soloviev he made this point many times, is to become overly subvervient to secular authority. Whether it be in Byzantium, Tsarist Russia, or even the Soviet Union(which even many Russian emigres constantly condemned the Church for).If I grant that for the sake of argument (and it is partially true, although often exaggerated), these are merely the human foibles of those entrusted with the care of the Church. The Church's doctrine on Church-state relations is and always has been that set out in St. Justinian's Novel. This stands in stark contrast with the Roman system, in which the superiority of spiritual to secular power, and of the Roman bishop to the other bishops, is formal and openly-proclaimed (or at least used to be) teaching. In the writings of figures like Aquinas and Bellarmine, the imperialistic pretensions of the papacy go quite unmasked, not as the tendencies of individual popes, but as the doctrine of the church.

[Boleslaw]

If this "greater unity" is to be bought at the price of subservience to the pope, then yes it is slavish.
Quite honestly, I think the whole notion of anykind of unity and reconciliation between the churches is simply out of the question in the minds of many Orthodox. Unless of course reconciliation means Catholics constantly grovelling at the Orthodox while they lash out at us.

Orthodox often like to whine about how the Catholic Church arrogantly claims to be the true church of Christ; yet the Orthodox boast of this at every possible moment.

Bulgakov was much more balanced than Soloviev in his appreciation of Catholicism. He compared the Roman church to a beautiful garden hidden under a hideous dome, the garden being the best of spiritual life within the Roman confession, especially as represented in some of the great "mystics" of the West, the dome being the mass of papal dogmas that, with their worldliness and authoritarianism, obscure this spiritual life.

Yes that really sounds more balanced. :rolleyes:

Speaking of "mystics"; Catholic mystics are often denounced and condemned by the Orthodox as well. As can be seen in this commentary (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/st_francis_st_seraphim.htm) which seeks to compare St. Francis of Assisi with St. Seraphim of Sarov.

Now nobody would deny the differences between Eastern and Western mysticism; however Catholics and Orthodox tend to take different approaches to the question.

Catholics tend to view these differences as distinct ways of loving God. and certainly each tradition can learn much from each other's teachings. This point is the major premise behind JPII's encyclical "Light of the East".

Orthodox OTOH, as demonstrated by the above link, tend to view these differences as a difference between light and day. One way is correct, the other isn't. The mysticism of St. Francis is almost made to seem Satanic; while St. Seraphim is the true Christian mystic.

Yet this is seen in other ways as well. Almost anything remotely related to Catholicism, even when officially recognized by the Church, tends to be neglected or relegated. This is especially true in regards to certain saints.

I can't find it at the moment, but there is one commentary Ive read from an Orthodox priest in Australia even lamenting the fact that the Orthodox too often forget to give proper homage to St. Peter the Apostle, mostly because of his association with the Papacy.

Then Rev. Dr. George C. Papademetriou (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp) has even written about the strong negativity often directed at St. Augustine. Even when they do speak positively of him, they insist us Catholics have falsified his teachings.

And so on and so on. With this and much more, it's amazing that Catholics are still interested in reconcilation with a party that's addicted to insulting us.

Oh yeah, don't ever mention Eastern Catholics to Orthodox. I made the mistake of doing so on an Orthodox mailing list a few years ago, and oh my goodness!

By contrast, Eastern Catholics often have great love and respect for their fellow Eastern Christians.

Seriously, is this shit really necessary?

[Boleslaw]

This discussion reminds me of a certain incident I read about in a biography of Nikolai Berdyaev(an Orthodox thinker I highly respect), in which he entertained several guests in his Berlin apartment, including Metropolitan Eulogius:

"Them of the members spoke in the name of the group. Beginning with effusive praise of Orthodoxy, he proceeded to attack the Roman Catholic Church, concluding with an appeal to the Metropolitan: "We call you, Your Eminence, to use your bishop's staff like an iron rod to destroy those wolves in sheep's clothing who have come among us and are stealing your flock." The wise Metropolitan listened to this admonition with his quietly fatherly smile, and although Berdyaev's face was white with repressed anger, nothing further was said on the issue. But as the Metropolitan was being ushered out, Berdyaev passes the word for the young people to remain. Then he turned to the offending member. His voice was harsh and imperious: "You insufferable boy - you not only permit yourself to instruct the Metropolitan as to what he should do, but in a home where the hostess belongs to the Catholic Church you presume to speak in such a coarse and indecent tone about the Catholics. I demand that you apologize immediately to my wife and leave this house!" To the rest he said: "We must always take a Christian attitude toward all Christians of whatever confession.""
-Donald A. Lowrie Rebellious Prophet: A Life of Nikolai Berdyaev pg. 163-64

[Cyprian]

Quite honestly, I think the whole notion of anykind of unity and reconciliation between the churches is simply out of the question in the minds of many Orthodox. Unless of course reconciliation means Catholics constantly grovelling at the Orthodox while they lash out at us. If the Orthodox seem intransigent, it's mainly because the issues between our churches were resolved 1300 years ago, before this resolution was abandoned by the popes in the 11th century. Furthermore, Vatican II greatly reduced the standing of Catholicism in Orthodox eyes, being seen largely as a liberalizing and modernizing council. The later developments under Paul VI didn't help much either. That said, there is further intransigence on the part of some Orthodox Christians, often arising more from national and historical causes than from theological considerations. However, a more balanced approach is found in the best of our theologians, like Sergei Bulgakov, Seraphim Rose, St. John Maximovic and Vladimir Lossky. The conditions of reunion, from an Orthodox point of view, is complete agreement to the terms of the reunification council that ended the Photian schism, the abandonment of the dogma of papal infallibility, abandonment of the doctrine of purgatory, acceptance of the Palamite council of the 14th century (regarding the distinction of essence and energies in God) and abandonment of the religious reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Of course, that's quite a list of demands. However, there is no ecclesiastical imperialism here. Under these conditions, the Orthodox are ready to accept the papal primacy, as defined by the reunification council, as well as to accept reunification with the Catholic Church en masse, without demanding the submission of Catholic parishes to Orthodox bishops, except in the case of the uniates.

Orthodox often like to whine about how the Catholic Church arrogantly claims to be the true church of Christ; yet the Orthodox boast of this at every possible moment. It's not so much a case of "whining" as of using these claims as evidence of the fundamental split between the churches. The point is that two assemblies, both of which claim to be the true church, and the only true church, cannot be reunified without great changes, indeed repentance, on one side or the other (while of course leaving room for the other side to share in the guilt incured by its own lack of charity in the past, which perhaps helped to create the division in the first place)

Yes that really sounds more balanced. :rolleyes: It's balanced from an Orthodox viewpoint in that it makes room for sanctity in the Catholic Church while simultaneously denouncing the papal dogmas, which from the Orthodox point of view are not only false but deeply heretical.

Speaking of "mystics"; Catholic mystics are often denounced and condemned by the Orthodox as well. As can be seen in this commentary (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/st_francis_st_seraphim.htm) which seeks to compare St. Francis of Assisi with St. Seraphim of Sarov.

Now nobody would deny the differences between Eastern and Western mysticism; however Catholics and Orthodox tend to take different approaches to the question.

Catholics tend to view these differences as distinct ways of loving God. and certainly each tradition can learn much from each other's teachings. This point is the major premise behind JPII's encyclical "Light of the East".

Orthodox OTOH, as demonstrated by the above link, tend to view these differences as a difference between light and day. One way is correct, the other isn't. The mysticism of St. Francis is almost made to seem Satanic; while St. Seraphim is the true Christian mystic.These types of questions are open ones for the Orthodox Christian. It is true, from an Orthodox point of view, that, "Evil dogmas lead to evil life," that correct belief and correct action are inseparable. However, this is not black and white, especially in cases where the person in question never had a realistic chance to become acquainted with and accept the doctrines of the Church. Therefore it should be no surprise if some genuine sanctity is found in the Western church. However, this sanctity will not be on a par with the greatest saints of the Orthodox church, such as St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, and others.

Yet this is seen in other ways as well. Almost anything remotely related to Catholicism, even when officially recognized by the Church, tends to be neglected or relegated. This is especially true in regards to certain saints.

I can't find it at the moment, but there is one commentary Ive read from an Orthodox priest in Australia even lamenting the fact that the Orthodox too often forget to give proper homage to St. Peter the Apostle, mostly because of his association with the Papacy.

Then Rev. Dr. George C. Papademetriou (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp) has even written about the strong negativity often directed at St. Augustine. Even when they do speak positively of him, they insist us Catholics have falsified his teachings. This relegation only really occurs on the semi (or fully) schismatic fringes of the Orthodox church. Mainline Orthodox Christians have no reservations about venerating St. Augustine, for example. As a matter of fact, it's a good litmus test to see if you're reading a genuine Orthodox theologian, or a fringe fanatic, to see how he treats the Western saints. That said, the Orthodox Church has historically not hesitated to criticize the Catholic Church for following St. Augustine slavishly, especially on the subject of the filioque.

[Boleslaw]

If the Orthodox seem intransigent, it's mainly because the issues between our churches were resolved 1300 years ago, before this resolution was abandoned by the popes in the 11th century.

Yes but this is 1300 years later. I hate to repeat the old secularist adage, but we're not living in the Middle Ages anymore!

That is not to say that the Medieval heritage is worthless, of course not. But we're in a different situation than 1300 years ago; and at best that can be seen as a foundation from which to forge new ties.


That said, there is further intransigence on the part of some Orthodox Christians, often arising more from national and historical causes than from theological considerations.

Yes I know. Thats another problem. The Orthodox have a real bad habit of allowing national and historical causes to cloud their judgement upon theological issues. Sadly this is because of the structure of the Orthodox Church itself; which is a recipe for this to occur. Wheras Catholic universalism has been a better restraint on this.

I constantly hear all the time about the Fourth Crusade; yet Orthodox continously seem to forget that the Pope himself at the time harshly condemned the attacks, and JPII officially apologized for this event during his trip to Greece. Furhter absurd is this tendency to think that literally another Crusader attack on Constantinople is just around the corner.

I believe firmly in remembering the past; but com'on!


The conditions of reunion, from an Orthodox point of view, is complete agreement to the terms of the reunification council that ended the Photian schism, the abandonment of the dogma of papal infallibility, abandonment of the doctrine of purgatory, acceptance of the Palamite council of the 14th century (regarding the distinction of essence and energies in God) and abandonment of the religious reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

Uh...huh, and what exactly are the Orthodox willing to give up in return?

Of course, that's quite a list of demands.

Yes it is, and helps further prove my point. The Orthodox makes all sorts of demands on Catholics - especially on many key elements of Catholic doctrine, yet I have never heard anything from the Orthodox about what they're willing to give up as well.

By contrast, Catholics pretty much just have one demand.

So again, whose being the difficult party here?

However, there is no ecclesiastical imperialism here.

No but you're expecting us to cave in and renounce so much of our faith; which in essence can be said to grovelling at you.

Under these conditions, the Orthodox are ready to accept the papal primacy, as defined by the reunification council, as well as to accept reunification with the Catholic Church en masse, without demanding the submission of Catholic parishes to Orthodox bishops, except in the case of the uniates.

The key words being here "under these conditions"; which in essence makes it impossible for this ever to occur.

The point is that two assemblies, both of which claim to be the true church, and the only true church, cannot be reunified without great changes, indeed repentance, on one side or the other

That's more true with the Orthodox side, with their "conditions" then it is with the Catholic side. Other than one major condition, the Catholic side is more than willing to allow the Orthodox to remain pretty much as they are, and recognizes them even now as a legitimate Church - only one not in communion with Rome.

Not so with the Orthodox, which as you just demonstrated above has a whole litany of demands.


(while of course leaving room for the other side to share in the guilt incured by its own lack of charity in the past, which perhaps helped to create the division in the first place)

Again, Catholics seem more willing to engage in that side of the equation more so than the Orthodox. As I said, the Pope even apologized for the sacking of Constantinople.

Care to tell me what exactly has the Orthodox Church done comparably to lessen tensions and encourage reconciliation and unity between the churches? Other than lifting the official excommunication on the Pope in the 60's, I can't think of too much.

Would it be fair to say that Catholics seem more interest in reconciliation than the Orthodox? To me it seems so.


However, this is not black and white, especially in cases where the person in question never had a realistic chance to become acquainted with and accept the doctrines of the Church. Therefore it should be no surprise if some genuine sanctity is found in the Western church. However, this sanctity will not be on a par with the greatest saints of the Orthodox church, such as St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, and others.

I'll stick to the Catholic perspective of considering both traditions equally valid. And I say this as an Eastern Christian btw.

[Cyprian]

Yes but this is 1300 years later. I hate to repeat the old secularist adage, but we're not living in the Middle Ages anymore! But not a lot has changed since then. The papal doctrines are still the same way they were in the eleventh century, making the reconciliation council as relevant as it ever was. The essential point of the reconciliation council is still the important point for the Orthodox churches in relation to the papal claims, that the Eastern patriarchates will never accept being put under the Roman patriarchate.
Yes I know. Thats another problem. The Orthodox have a real bad habit of allowing national and historical causes to cloud their judgement upon theological issues. Sadly this is because of the structure of the Orthodox Church itself; which is a recipe for this to occur. Wheras Catholic universalism has been a better restraint on this. We could argue back and forth on the connections between localized Church structure and nationalism, but that would really be to miss the point. This is a doctrinal issue, an issue of fidelity to the Church's tradition. The Orthodox Church doesn't reject the papal claims because it finds them inexpedient; it rejects them because it finds them untraditional and unscriptural, which is the point of Guettee's book.
Uh...huh, and what exactly are the Orthodox willing to give up in return? The Patriarchate of Constantinople is willing to give up its traditional role as ecumenical patriarchate and all the churches are willing to accept the Roman primacy.
So again, whose being the difficult party here?But in matters of faith it's not a virtue not to be difficult. Again quoting Bulgakov, any reunion of churches has to be based on a maximum, not a minimum, of doctrinal agreement. As another theologian put it, reunification does not occur to promote unity, but to recognize a unity that already exists. The Orthodox see the filioque and the papal claims as dogmatic issues, which of course does make dialogue difficult.
Care to tell me what exactly has the Orthodox Church done comparably to lessen tensions and encourage reconciliation and unity between the churches? Other than lifting the official excommunication on the Pope in the 60's, I can't think of too much.There's not much to be done until agreement is reached on the dogmatic issues. If the main Catholic complaint against the Orthodox Church is intransigence, the main Orthodox complaint against the contemporary Catholic church is dishonesty. The popes speak in sweet tones to the Orthodox, then turn around and continue to uphold the same imperialistic doctrines of universal jurisdiction. A "union of churches" is spoken of which would actually involve the Roman patriarchate essentially consuming the other four.

[Boleslaw]

The Patriarchate of Constantinople is willing to give up its traditional role as ecumenical patriarchate and all the churches are willing to accept the Roman primacy.

And what else?


But in matters of faith it's not a virtue not to be difficult. Again quoting Bulgakov, any reunion of churches has to be based on a maximum, not a minimum, of doctrinal agreement. As another theologian put it, reunification does not occur to promote unity, but to recognize a unity that already exists.

Yes this is pretty much the Catholic position as well.


There's not much to be done until agreement is reached on the dogmatic issues. If the main Catholic complaint against the Orthodox Church is intransigence, the main Orthodox complaint against the contemporary Catholic church is dishonesty. The popes speak in sweet tones to the Orthodox, then turn around and continue to uphold the same imperialistic doctrines of universal jurisdiction. A "union of churches" is spoken of which would actually involve the Roman patriarchate essentially consuming the other four.

This is absolutely not so. The authority of the other patriarchates would still be recognized, even in regards to autonomy from Rome. This is especially true now in regards to the doctrine of collegiality, which was established at Vatican II:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegiality#Collegiality_in_the_Catholic_Church

Collegiality in the Catholic Church

Collegiality also refers to the doctrine held in the Roman Catholic Church that the bishops of the world, collectively considered (the College of Bishops) share the responsibility for the governance and pastoral care of the Church with the Pope. This doctrine was explicitly taught by the Second Vatican Council, though it is grounded in earlier teaching. One of the major changes of the Second Vatican Council was to encourage episcopal conferences (bishops' conferences).

Proponents emphasise that the doctrine does not attempt to diminish the role of the Pope.

I know about this through the various issues concerning Eastern Catholics and their role within the wider Church. Among us Ukrainians, there's been an effort by Cardinal Huzar to establish an Ukrainian patriarchate.

[Cyprian]

This is absolutely not so. The authority of the other patriarchates would still be recognized, even in regards to autonomy from Rome. This is especially true now in regards to the doctrine of collegiality, which was established at Vatican II:


I know about this through the various issues concerning Eastern Catholics and their role within the wider Church. Among us Ukrainians, there's been an effort by Cardinal Huzar to establish an Ukrainian patriarchate.While there's some substance to this, the "autonomy from Rome" is only a veneer. Any power of a council above or in competition with that of a pope was rejected in the defeat of the conciliar movement of the 15th century. In these modern initiatives, it's been made quite clear that whatever power is given to the bishops that used to be exercised by the pope is a grant of the pope, which still belongs to him by right. Furthermore, the example of the uniates does not inspire us with confidence, as in the past liturgical alterations have been pushed through on the strength of Roman authority.

[Boleslaw]

Furthermore, the example of the uniates does not inspire us with confidence, as in the past liturgical alterations have been pushed through on the strength of Roman authority.

In the case of Ukrainians, much of the "Latinization" was largely imposed by the Polish, not the Papacy per se. Furthermore, the Ukrainian church was always more greatly influenced by the West than the Russian church.

Within the last 100 years or so; several Popes have written about the need for the Eastern Churches to preserve their particular identity against "Latinization". Pope Leo XIII was the first that Im aware(btw, he also petitioned the Tsar against the suppression of Eastern Catholics in Russia). Vatican II placed a great emphasis on Eastern Catholics recapturing their heritage. And I've already mentioned JPII's stress upon this as well, as was demonstrated in his encyclical "Light of the East".

[Petr]

In my investigations during the past few weeks, I think I have really learned a whole lot more about the Eastern Orthodox worldview. Isn't that what learning is supposed to be? :)

For example, I didn't quite realize that they see Roman Catholicism as an inevitable source of Protestantism, that Roman schism is what made all the following secularization of Europe possible.

Or like it's put in here:


Papism as the Oldest Protestantism

"In the European West, Christianity has gradually transformed into humanism. For a long time and arduously, the God-Man diminished, and has been changed, narrowed, and finally reduced to a man: to the infallible man in Rome and the equally infallible man in London and Berlin. Thus did papism come into being, taking everything from Christ, along with Protestantism, which asks the least from Christ, and often nothing. Both in papism and in Protestantism, man has been put in the place of the God-Man, both as the highest value and as the highest criterion. A painful and sad correction of the God-Man's work and teaching has been accomplished. Steadily and stubbornly papism has tried to substitute the God-Man with man, until in the dogma about the infallibility of the pope — a man, the God-Man was once and for all replaced with ephemeral, infallible man; because with this dogma, the pope was decisively and clearly declared as something higher than not only man, but the holy Apostles, the holy Fathers, and the holy Ecumenical councils. With this kind of a departure from the God-Man, from the ecumenical Church as the God-Man organism, papism surpassed Luther, the founder of Protestantism. Thus, the first radical protest in the name of humanism against the God-Man Christ, and his God-Man organism — the Church — should be looked for in papism, not in Lutheranism. Papism is actually the first and the oldest Protestantism.

We should not do this ourselves. Papism indeed is the most radical Protestantism, because it has transferred the foundation of Christianity from the eternal God-Man to ephemeral man. And it has proclaimed this as the paramount dogma, which means: the paramount value, the paramount measure of all beings and things in the world. And the Protestants merely accepted this dogma in its essence, and worked it out in terrifying magnitude and detail. Essentially, Protestantism is nothing other than a generally applied papism. For in Protestantism, the fundamental principle of papism is brought to life by each man individually. After the example of the infallible man in Rome, each Protestant is a cloned infallible man, because he pretends to personal infallibility in matters of faith. It can be said: Protestantism is a vulgarized papism, only stripped of mystery (i.e., sacramentality), authority and power."

http://michaelwestfall.tripod.com/id109.html


I had formerly read a quip that the dogma of papal infallibility made the pope as the only person exercising private judgment in the Roman church, but I never quite made this connection...


Here is a very interesting Orthodox-Hellenistic blog that makes similar kind of arguments:

http://www.ellopos.net/politics/papacy.html

"Those who later rejected Catholicism received their culture from it. They grew up in it, and it had taught them how to think and philosophize. Protestants, humanists, atheists -the whole series of European philosophers- all graduated from the school of Catholicism. That is why they all speak the same language, the language of rationalism, and this is why, in spite of all their variances, they understand each other so famously. …"

http://www.ellopos.net/politics/kalomoiros-papacy.html#_Toc148616260


Petr