Papal Forgery Accepted in Russia

Mr Grigorieff, a Catholic seminarian, takes a deep dive into the Russian Orthodox view of the "Donation of Constantine", an eighth-century forgery purporting to grant temporal authority in the West to the Pope.

From One Peter Five

By Maxim Grigorieff

Recently, while meeting the first American Pope, Vice-President of the United States J.D. Vance shook the hand of the Supreme Pontiff while abstaining from kissing his ring of the fisherman – something any other Roman Catholic would be perfectly willing to do. This put Mr. Vance in hot water that is heated up by different crowds up to the point where he had to explain himself by coming out with a sophisticated theory about when it is proper to show your respect and loyalty to the Pope as a humble parishioner and when it requires weirdly shaking hands with the a foreign prince of the Apostles and the potentate of the great state of Vatican in a purely political context of a state visit. All that was only required due to the complicated history of relations between the Catholic Church and Modern European countries, especially those brought about and shaped by the Enlightenment.

Here is an example. As a Russian I cannot claim to know the situation in America with precision, but I can bet that if J.D. Vance were a Greek Orthodox, no public sign of veneration and affiliation with one of these Eastern Churches (such as kissing the right hand of a bishop, possibly the Patriarch of Constantinople) would be that suspicious, although they literally call their bishops despots (Δεσπότη), i.e. potentates.

Why should that be the case? Because it was not the Orthodox Patriarchs who used to crown the emperors in Western Europe, claiming to have a universal jurisdiction in matters both spiritual and temporal. The roots of this concern can be traced back to the Donation of Constantine, when such universal jurisdiction began to be interpreted in a political sense. What do we know about it?

A Fair Pact or a Double-Coup?

A historical document purportedly written in the 4th century, it claimed to be a legal act in which Emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the Western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. This document was significant in asserting the political power of the papacy and the Church over secular rulers, which turned out to be especially inopportune in the 15th century when Lorenzo Valla demonstrated that it contained anachronisms and linguistic inconsistencies that indicated it could not have been produced in the 4th century.

It has been suggested ever since that an early draft of the Donation of Constantine was composed shortly after the mid-8th century to aid Pope Stephen II in his negotiations with Pepin the Short, who held the position of Mayor of the Palace (essentially the manager of the Frankish king’s household). In 754, Pope Stephen II journeyed across the Alps to anoint Pepin as king, thereby enabling the Carolingian family to supplant the old Merovingian royal line. In exchange for Stephen’s support, Pepin granted the pope the territories in Italy that had been seized by the Lombards from the Eastern Roman Empire. These lands would eventually become the Papal States, forming the foundation of the papacy’s temporal power for the next eleven centuries.

From a Protestant perspective (which I assume is shared by the secular mindset), the political nature of this forgery appears to be a calculated scheme, a plot, a double-coup: the Church played a crucial role in facilitating a regime change within the Frankish kingdom. In return, the new king supported the pope, culminating in a fictional agreement that encapsulated the intentions of both parties. This arrangement not only secured Roman dominance but also reinforced ecclesiastical authority over secular matters.

It was in 1610, id est after the Humanist and Protestant critiques, when Pope Paul V officially acknowledged the ‘Donation’ as a forgery, having left the Church in the Modern Times of phony evidence-based rationalism in a rather difficult situation:  

The idea that the Church was willing to create false documents for secular power has become notorious, no matter how much this view overlooks the complexities of medieval thinking and how people viewed documents, which were quite different from our modern ideas of historical truth. What naturally emerged as a mythical authorisation of a changed political realia which were lived enough to be listed as what we know as a ‘fact’ – this tragically died as a fake. As a result, when exploring the basis of Roman authority, it becomes challenging to separate arguments about the God-established service Apostle Peter in the Kingdom of God from those temporal authorities coming from the Donation of Constantine.

Even here in Russia, I find myself wrestling with this historical narrative when discussing Catholic beliefs with others. It prompted me to look into how the Donation of Constantine was viewed in Rus’. At first, I thought all Eastern Christians would have dismissed this document, given its clear undermining of Eastern patriarchs in favour of the Roman See. However, I quickly realised my assumptions were misguided. It turned out to be way more interesting!

The ‘Papist’ Donation of Constantine has been a part of the Russian Tradition

In fact, the Donation of Constantine had been accepted in Russia since the Middle Ages up until the 19th century and beyond, and even after Metropolitan Platon in 1805 privately recognised it as a forgery, the Donation was not removed from the so-called ‘Kormchaya Book’ – the Russian Nomocanon, a collection of canonical documents and precedents authoritative for the Russian Church. 

Why was it that important for the Russian Church? Because in the Middle Ages the same struggle between the Church and the State was going on in our part of Greater Europe – the struggle that, just like in the West, came to the bloody climax in Modernity. Can the Church possess property, have lands and peasants, or should the Grand Duke have all the land at his hand? Does the Duke have the authority over the Church’s internal affairs? There were different answers to these questions, just like in the West.

In 1503, thirty-one years before the Act of Supremacy, a council was held in Moscow that included the Donation of Constantine (Russian: Вено Константиново) among the arguments in favour of monastic land ownership. This was a prominent and a controversial council of the Russian Church that also dealt with simony, prohibiting the practice of collecting fees for identification documents for ordained priests and deacons.

The Donation played an even more significant role at the Council of 1551, also known as the ‘Stoglav’ (literally ‘Hundred Chapters’).  Sixteen chapters were dedicated to arguments supporting the inviolability of Church courts and Church property. We see the persistence in using this document, although this council reestablished the fees that had been banned as simonical.

In 1580, a decree was issued that prohibited bishops and monasteries from acquiring lands and other real estate. Despite this, Chapter 60 of the Stoglav (another one of those based on the Donation) remained important as it protected Church properties.

The importance of the Donation grew even further under Patriarch Nikon, whose struggle was also against civil authority interfering with Church affairs. To safeguard his claims, Nikon included the Donation among additional articles in the printed ‘Kormchaya Kniga,’ which, again, is a Church law book in which both canons and precedents are presented. In this version, the Donation is printed in its most comprehensive form compared to the editions by Byzantine canonists. It includes a preface, a confession of faith attributed to Constantine, an account of his suffering from leprosy, a dream vision, his baptism and healing, as well as the act of donation itself.

I read the Nikonian edition of the Kormchaya,[1] published in 1653 in order to investigate the roots of the current Russian Orthodox attitude towards Catholicism to see what can be done and said now. And here are some theses a modern Russian Orthodox no longer can dismiss as ‘untraditional.’

Thesis 1. The bishops must in principle obey the Bishop of Rome, who is the Successor of St. Peter and the ‘universal pope.’

The Latin original text says:

To the most holy and blessed father of fathers, Sylvester, bishop and pope of the city of Rome, and to all his successors who will sit in the chair of blessed Peter until the end of the age, to the pontiffs and to all the most reverend and God-loving Catholic bishops subject to the same sacred Roman Church by this our imperial constitution in the whole world, now and in all future times established from the past, grace, peace, charity, joy, patience, mercy from God the Father Almighty and Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit be with all of you.[2]

What does the Russian version say?

It precisely follows the original text, adding only one word as an attribute to the name ‘Sylvester’ and ‘Catholic bishops’ – the adjective ‘orthodox.’ What it practically means, as we are about to see, is that the translators and the publishers of the Donation in Church Slavonic implied that the orthodox bishops are obliged to be subject to the Pope of Rome… who is orthodox, meaning not a heretic, in order to experience all the benefits of the Donation. It suggests that in principle all ‘small-o’-orthodox, that is non-heretic bishops ought to obey the Pope. This alteration will play its role further, so we shall come back to it soon.

Meanwhile, in both versions comes the beautiful and poetic confession of the faith made by the emperor, according to which:

God created man in His image and formed the universe from nothing, arranging all things with divine wisdom. He fashioned man from dust and placed him in paradise, but the devil caused his exile through the forbidden fruit. After this fall, humanity was led away from truth and into idol worship. In His mercy, God sent prophets to announce the coming of His Son, Jesus Christ, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Jesus is both true God and true Man, performing miracles and fulfilling the law and prophets. He suffered, was crucified, rose on the third day, ascended to heaven, and will return to judge the living and the dead, with an everlasting kingdom.

This part looks very important both in the original Latin text and in Russian Church Slavonic translation: the legitimacy of the Emperor himself, the lawfulness of his further actions are as if justified by his being a small-letter-’o’ orthodox Christian.

Then Constantine shares his miraculous healing from leprosy through the intercession of Bishop Silvester of Rome, which deepened his faith in Christ. What is interesting from this story is that it underlines the basic benevolence of the Emperor who will not engage in ritual manslaughter, but needs a bishop – a Roman Bishop – to guide him to the path of the righteous, as it is willed by the Apostles.

‘For the Lord our God Himself, having mercy on me, a sinner, sent His holy apostles to visit us and shone the light of His splendour upon us, and rejoice that I have come out of darkness to the true light and knowledge of the truth. For while a strong leprosy of filth had invaded the whole flesh of my body, and the care of many physicians who came to me was applied, I did not merit even one salvation; at this the priests of the Capitol arrived, telling me that a fountain should be made in the Capitol and that it should be filled with the blood of innocent infants, and that I could be cleansed in that warm bath. And according to their words, when many innocent infants were gathered together, while the sacrilegious priests of the pagans wanted them to be slaughtered and the fountain filled with their blood, Our Serenity, seeing the tears of their mothers, immediately shuddered at the crime, and taking pity on them, we ordered that their own children be restored to them, and rejoicing in the vehicles given and the gifts granted, we relaxed to our own.

That same day, therefore, when the silence of the night had come upon us, and the time for sleep had come, the apostles Saint Peter and Paul were present, saying to me: “Since you have put an end to your crimes and have abhorred the shedding of innocent blood, we have been sent by Christ our Lord God to give you advice for recovering your health. Hear, therefore, our warnings and do whatever we tell you. Silvester, bishop of the city of Rome, fleeing your persecutions to Mount Seraphim, is hiding in the caves of the rocks with his clerics. When you bring him to you, he will show you the pool of piety, in which, when he has immersed you for the third time, all that health of leprosy will leave you.’

It is clear that Constantine himself did not persecute Christians in general and Pope Silvester in particular, although the Donation suggests this pretty clearly in the words of Peter and Paul. That ‘error’ only proves that what we behold is not a historical document in the modern sense, but a vision, a prophecy about the meaning of what is happening in the context of historical experience, presented in medieval categories as a pseudo-epigraph. This story is not historically accurate, but it is true in another sense, because it summarises the entire history of the relationship between

1. the popes and the pagan emperors;
2. the same popes and the Byzantine emperors during the first seven Ecumenical councils. When the emperors were good and did not want to shed innocent blood, they listened to the popes, and when they were not, they indulged heresies and persecuted Catholics. Therefore, at the beginning of the work, Constantine calls himself orthodox. He is the emperor par excellence.

Then the Emperor finds Pope Silvester and asks him which gods appeared to him in his dream. Silvester explains to Constantine that they were no gods, but the apostles of Jesus Christ named Peter and Paul. After this, the bishop commands his archdeacon to bring icons, and on the icons, the emperor recognises the faces of the ‘divines’ who appeared to him in the dream. Silvester allocates time for Constantine’s repentance: he commands the emperor to dress in sackcloth and remain inside the Lateran palace, where he must repent for his sins. Once the time allotted for repentance is over, Bishop Silvester of Rome baptizes and anoints the emperor. The emperor is then healed from his leprosy.

In gratitude, he, along with the Senate and the Roman people, elevates the authority of the high priests of the Christian Church – the Roman Pontiffs – above imperial power, recognising their leadership as successors to the Apostle Peter. And it was all copied into the Russian Orthodox version of the ‘Code of Canon Law.’

Then, according to the Latin version of the Donation, the high priest of the Roman Church was to hold primacy over four major sees: Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. It is stated that Constantine began constructing a grand church in his Lateran palace dedicated to Christ, symbolising their faith with twelve vessels of earth for the apostles. This Church was envisioned as the pinnacle of all Churches deserving of reverence. He allocated resources to support the Church’s mission globally, affirming its vital role in guiding the empire’s moral foundation.

Does the Russian Orthodox version omit or change anything?

Only the order of the Eastern Patriarchs: the Russian version puts Constantinople above the rest of the Eastern Churches, according to the Chalcedon tradition. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. That was not, of course, a Russian invention. This altered order came to Russia from the Byzantine tradition.

Further, up to the end of the Latin original, the two versions perfectly coincide: the decree boldly asserts the pre-eminence of papal authority over the earthly powers, particularly in relation to the illustrious city of Rome and its surroundings. It proclaims that the dignity of the papacy must be revered and safeguarded, impervious to the whims of any temporal ruler.[3]

Within this proclamation lies the establishment of a new city in the Eastern territories, named in honour of the Emperor Constantine, which is also a testament to the enduring influence of the Papacy. The document firmly declares that the power of the pope shall remain unassailable in regions where the Christian faith flourishes, a beacon of spiritual authority amidst worldly tumult.

Moreover, it issues a stark warning: any future sovereigns or nobles who dare to defy this decree shall encounter dire repercussions, both in this life and the hereafter. The document culminates in a solemn pledge to uphold these sacred principles, vowing to safeguard them for the benefit of generations yet to come – both popes and emperors alike – ensuring that the legacy of this divine authority endures through the ages.

What was added?

When the Latin text has nothing to add, just before the final signatures, comes the appendix:

To the Roman See be all that glory and benefits described above…But also

‘…to other Patriarch sees, each in their own realms, in honor of the holy apostles and disciples of Christ. To the Byzantine see, which I have renamed in my own name, in honour of the Apostle Andrew, who labored greatly to lead others to godly wisdom. Also to the Alexandrian [Patriarch], the successor of Mark, and the Antiochian [Patriarch], the successor of Luke, and the Jerusalem throne of James, the Lord’s brother – to each of whom we grant the appropriate honour within their jurisdiction, just as our successors will do until the end of the age. And to all the churches of Christ, to the metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops, and their successors, we give them the honor due – I and my successors, and the great satraps. So act and behave, that you may not experience unutterable burdens and be deprived of God’s glory. But keep the tradition as you have received it. Fear God and honor His holy Church and its leaders, that you may receive God’s mercy in this age and in the one to come.’

It is clear that for Patriarch Nikon it was important to refer to this particular part of the document. After all, these lines state, in practical terms, that the Church cannot have its rights taken away by the secular government, although the concept of secularism hadn’t been introduced into Russia yet. At the same time, these  advantages are entirely based on an unedited ‘Manifest of Popery’ in its broadest possible sense, which makes the Bishop of Rome into the ‘Universal Pope’ (Russian and Church Slavonic: соборный папа), particularly quoting from Matthew 16:18: ‘And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’

Once again, the resolution of the question of whether the Moscow Tsar has the right to take land from the Church directly depends on the fundamental acceptance of contemporary Papism, in which:

A) supreme authority is given to the Pope of Rome over all churches, but especially over the West;

B) appropriate honour is given to other Patriarchs in their territories;

C) the basis for the primacy of the Roman Pope is not in the decree of Constantine, but in succession from St. Apostle Peter

D) Nevertheless, Constantine recognises the hierarchical structure of the Church and ensures her rights on different levels by his decrees that are supposed to have legal weight in this Church throughout these levels.

While the modern Orthodox may struggle with points A and C, B and D remain a challenge for modern Catholic theologians and require a thorough investigation, as we are going to discuss in the last section of this article.

Thesis 2. The Pope, the Emperor and the Bishops must be orthodox (small-letter-’o’)

The only condition introduced into the text by the Russian translation is orthodoxy. The orthodox pope instructs the orthodox emperor in the orthodox faith, and he guarantees rights to all orthodox, that is, non-Arian, non-heretical bishops.

In the Latin original, orthodoxy is mentioned only once and in relation to faith and the Pope is said to be the high teacher and the guardian of it:

‘For this is our orthodox faith, proclaimed to us by our most blessed father Sylvester, supreme pontiff; therefore we exhort all people and the various nations of the nations to hold, worship and preach this faith and to receive the grace of baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity and to adore with a devoted heart the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior, who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit for endless ages, whom Sylvester, our most blessed father, the universal pontiff, preaches.’[4]

However, in the Slavonic version taken from Nikon’s Nomokanon, the orthodoxy of the Pope and Bishops actually becomes the criterion for those privileges guaranteed by the Donation of Constantine and for the subordination of all bishops to the supreme and universal Pope, the successor of Peter.

This assumption finds confirmation in the second insert of the Russian Nomokanon – the Kormchaya Book – made by Patriarch Nikon. This is the so-called ‘On the Roman Fall, How They Deviated From the Orthodox Faith and from the Holy Eastern Church.’[5]

The main accusation against Rome is that Pope Leo III sought to revive the Roman Empire and ‘anointed Charlemagne with a Greek ceremony’ (referred to as Karul[6]).

Charlemagne, ‘although he was named with a Christian name from his grandfather and father, and honoured Christ’s laws,’ brought with him priests who taught otherwise. The book then lists almost all the condemned heresies of the first millennium and, of course, criticizes the filioque in a primitive form, as well as the celebration of the Holy Mass using unleavened bread.

In this context, Pope Leo, who crowned Charlemagne in a ‘Greek manner,’ is portrayed as a victim of circumstances: he asks for wise men from the Church of Constantinople to help against heretics, and he laments the suffering of martyrs. The narrative recounts the famous incident when the real Pope Leo III, supposedly defending traditional teaching and the unity of the Church, ‘wrote on disks a confession of the Orthodox Faith and placed it on the wall of the temple, so that those entering would confess the Son as begotten of the Father and the Spirit as proceeding from the Father. He did this to strengthen the faithful and to rebuke Charlemagne’s heretics.’

Furthermore, according to the story, after the death of Pope Leo III, Pope Benedict came to power.[7] He assessed the influence of Frankish heretics so soberly that he allegedly ‘wrote to the four patriarchs – those of Constantinople, Alexandria, [Antioch], and Jerusalem – that after his death they should not commemorate the names of popes until they have publicly confessed their faith in writing,’ since ‘an evil heresy’ had settled in Rome.

The narrative continues that after a series of relatively decent but already suspected popes, Pope Formosus ascended to the throne, who came ‘from the Gauls.’ This is the same pope who was subjected to the so-called ‘Cadaver Synod.’ For the Eastern Church, he is a symbol of heresy, a significant figure after whom all Roman popes are presumed to be heretics. After all, he allegedly taught all the heresies with which Eastern patriarchs and theologians accused the West, especially the Frankish and German West. He is the first pope explicitly called a heretic.

The text of the narrative includes criticism of Purgatory, referred to as the ‘purifying fire.’ Naturally, the understanding of this doctrine is quite misguided. The version condemned by the author is also rejected by the Catholic Church itself, specifically the belief that sinners, like the rich man in the parable of Lazarus – i.e., hardened and conscious sinners who have died without repentance, as the Latins would say, in a state of mortal sin—can supposedly enter paradise through suffering by necessity according to some sort of neo-Platonic logic of ‘reunification.’ This is a misunderstanding to which Origen and few other Church Fathers erroneously held.

As the narrative progresses, it becomes increasingly filled with more myths: a mythical pope named Peter the Nasal (Russian: Петр Гугнивый) appears. He is a made-up figure who allegedly allowed Latin priests to have ‘seven wives and as many concubines as they wished,’ as well as permitted them to ‘fast in a Jewish manner on Saturdays’ – yes, the author mistakenly believed that Jews do not celebrate on Saturdays but fast instead.

Of course, it is all nonsense from the historical perspective. But it is very telling of the level of suspicion and prejudice circulating about the Latins during the last decades of the Byzantine empire and in Russia by the middle of the 17th century. Historians believe that the prototype for Peter the Nasal was Peter Mong, which means ‘tongue-tied’ in Greek. However, Peter Mong was not a Roman Pope, but rather the Patriarch of Alexandria. He was a Monophysite, a heretic. (Orthodox Christians and Catholics believe that Christ has two natures – divine and human – while Monophysites assert that there is one divine-human nature.) For such heresy, Peter Mong was sentenced to death, but he managed to escape. However, his successors proved to be even more troublesome for Constantinople, prompting Emperor Zeno and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, to agree to restore Peter’s position on the condition that he sign the Henotikon – a sort of reconciliation document stating that each party would maintain its own views and cease to persecute one another for it. But then Rome intervened. Pope Felix II excommunicated Patriarch Acacius for associating with heretics like Mong. Thus began the Acacian Schism, during which Rome once again positioned itself as the defender of orthodoxy, labelling all those who broke away from it as heretics.

In the real history the heretical Patriarch Acacius was excommunicated by the Pope St. Felix II with the following words:

‘You are deprived of the priesthood, excommunicated from Catholic communion and from the number of the faithful. You no longer have the right to the title of hierarch or to perform sacred actions. Such is the condemnation imposed upon you by the judgment of the Holy Spirit and the authority of the apostles, of which we are bearers.’[8]

Furthermore, at the Council of 512, the subsequent Patriarch of Constantinople unconditionally submitted to the demands of the papal legates regarding the anathema of his predecessors – Acacius, Euphemius, and Timothy – and acknowledged the Council of Chalcedon, as well as the commemoration of Pope Leo. Although the latter were revered by the people almost as saints, there was no formal protest against the papal decision and its ultimatum at the council, despite these edicts containing allusions to the authority of the Apostle Peter and its continuity through the bishops of Rome. This fact is acknowledged in the Orthodox Encyclopaedia of the Russian Orthodox Church.[9]

Thus, for 5th-century Byzantium, the authority of the bishop of Rome was not a ‘Latin innovation’ or ‘heresy,’ but rather a guarantee of orthodoxy and the foundation upon which universal unity rests.

The Pope is not an ephemeral ‘first among equals,’ but rather a Shepherd and vicar of Christ, a successor of the Apostle Peter, upon whom Christ Himself established His Church, invincible against the gates of hell. Unlike Medieval Byzantium and the Russian religious discourse of Modernity, as we see in the text this Papism, even though by the end of which, as hatred towards the Latins intensifies, it transforms beyond recognition. The wicked Franks are no longer portrayed as enemies of the Roman Church; instead, ‘the pope seduced the Germans with his teachings into his heresy,’ cunningly compelling them to appoint a Czar in Rome. And even in Britain, ‘which received baptism under Constantine’ now the kings are taken from the Germans, ‘instead of a Greek Caesar.’

In his hostile fantasies, the unnamed and likely Greek author writes that the heretical pope ‘appointed four patriarchs of his own instead of the Orthodox four patriarchs, whom he called cardinals, thereby completely departing from the pious faith and becoming an enemy to the Greeks, to the orthodox faith, and to the holy Universal Church.’

What can we understand from this essay?

Firstly, the very logic of the Eastern tradition resists the idea of ​​the Roman Pope as a heretic. Only the most difficult and tragic circumstances led to a catastrophe, and only when

• a self-proclaimed successor to the Roman Empire arose in the West, which fell under the onslaught of the ‘barbarian’ Germans;
• a man from the Gauls was elected Pope, that is, a man living outside the Oecumena, i.e. the Romanitas, being therefore infected with barbarian superstitions and heresies. Such, for example, was a historical reaction of the 9th century Greek bishops in regards to the new Latin sacred art that had been heavily influenced by the Germans.

But the core of the tradition remains unchanged: all Orthodox bishops, and therefore their corresponding Churches, are obliged to obey the Bishop of Rome, honouring him as the successor of the Apostle Peter on the basis of Matthew 16:18 and also by virtue of the dignity of the Apostle Paul. For the East, everything is based on this principle of honouring the apostolic sees. Thus, the Eastern patriarchs cannot seriously deny the primacy of Rome without putting themselves at risk of losing any historical ground for their own benefits. The same applies to the serious historical polemics of the Russian Church. If, of course, the polemicists want to remain in the field of tradition, and not create their own Modernist project, a new narrative that all patriarchs are supposedly equal, or that primacy is a consequence of political power. Unfortunately, we have been observing these tendencies.

That is why I suggest that we, Catholics, in communicating with the Eastern Orthodox brethren should execute the following program:

Step 1. Point to the tradition and underline its premises, emphasising this and other precedents of Rome’s Apostolic primacy and the need to be subordinate to it according to the Divine Law;

Step 2. Consistently and painstakingly show our brothers and sisters that Rome has not fallen into heresy and now, as before, fights against it, defending Christianity and strengthening the brothers. I am inclined to think that the infallibility of the Pope must be the last step in these discussions, when all accusations of heresy are completely dropped. (I think this does require to be minimalistic in claims that should be about mere orthodoxy by the first millennium standards – orthodoxy that does not equal in volume with any particular tradition or the entire spectrum of the Tradition in general, yet a very specific orthodoxy that was fought for by the Fathers and guarded by their leader in Apostolic dignity – the Pope of Rome, whose primacy was instrumental to the Truth and very often used in this quality.)

Step 2.5. Spread knowledge about the ‘oecumenical’ foundation of the Latin Middle Ages and the good fruits of the Catholic evangelisation in Western Europe, as well as on the Greek influence on it, and visa-versa, underlining the common roots of that double-tree of our traditions

Step 3. Try to re-conceptualise a balanced-out politico-theological configuration where

1. the Pope and the Roman Church are marionettes of no Western hegemony, but indeed the leading political force in the West;
2. the East is respected in its religious and political traditions…
3. …which includes a new perspective on the ‘symphony’ between the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities  – the theory and practise most reminiscent of the Two Wwords theory in the West, drawing our attention once again to the Investiture Controversy and even to Synodality as a form of involving laymen in governing the ‘external’ affairs of the Church. It might be useful for overcoming the current crisis and re-establishing the wholistic socio-religious entity once known as Christendom in the long run

In practice, this last one requires a form of asceticism in the West regarding its expansion into what is referred to as ‘the Orthodox East,’ encompassing a general respect to the East’s economic, political, and narrowly confessional interests. It also implies a certain asceticism in political theory: the existence of a successor to the Eastern Roman Empire in the East should not be viewed in the West with greater scepticism than the existence of the historical successors of the Western Roman Empire (such as the Empires of the Franks, Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Spaniards, etc.). This also applies when considering modern political entities of the West, some of which endeavour to embody the role of the Roman Empire in the West from a bureaucratic, economic, ideological, and peacekeeping perspective, much like the European Union does since it has been around.

Recognising the mirror character of the relations between East and West within a shared geopolitical and conceptual space will foster a deeper understanding of our interdependence and profound unity, both historically and in contemporary times, both in positive developments and negative trends, and it inevitably impacts the matter of Christian unity.

The next step in this direction involves dismantling the notorious system of ‘confessional boundaries,’ and moving away from the entrenched mentality of three distinct Christian worlds (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox), which risks perpetuating a state akin to an undeclared truce between North and South Korea. Rather, Catholics ought to regard Orthodox Christians as separated brothers and sisters now, fostering dialogue from a position of unity.

What do I mean by that? I’m not denying that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. Rather, we need to look at this ecclesiologically in a pre-Modern sense. ‘Confessionalism,’ as I am using the term here, is a result of the Protestant revolt.

What makes our job easier is that, from the perspective of the Eastern Tradition as we have managed to see in the texts, the Orthodox faith and the Eastern Church are two distinct entities. One is bigger than another and higher in the order of matters. At that time, the phrase ‘the Orthodox Church’ had not yet emerged as a designation for a separate Christian confession. On the contrary, the tradition retains a universal criterion of orthodoxy, as well as a division between East and West, which should be united if not for the malicious heresies and various machinations of the devil and barbaric theologians. We can and should work within this traditional framework, and as Catholics we have all the tools.

Why is it important? Because the modern logic of so-called ‘confessions’ is stable and tribal, it inclines towards getting used to lack of unity between Christians, and it impedes the mere thoughts and hopes for this unity by engaging into some sort of the ‘conversion Olympics,’ a spectacular game broadcasted on YouTube under clickbaits like ‘X DESTROYED Y,’ a race – the kind of game only possible in the context of the inter-Christian trench war that settled on 25 September, 1555 with the infamous  moto  ‘cujus regio, eius religio.’ The kind of game that, after all, will be no fun without a division.

Instead, Catholicism and Papacy must be perceived as truly orthodox by those who view things from this perspective, as well as orthodoxy must be viewed as an essential logos and pathos of Roman Catholicism. Because we [are] one – used to, have been, have to, shall be, must and are… in Baptism.

---

[1] Кормчая Книга, 1653, starting from p. 738, URL: https://viewer.rsl.ru/ru/rsl01002437609?page=738&rotate=0&theme=white

[2] sanctissimo ac beatissimo patri patrum Silvestrio, urbis Romae episcopo et papae, atque omnibus eius successoribus, qui in sede beati Petri usque in finem saeculi sessuri sunt, pontificibus nec non et omnibus reverentissimis et deo amabilibus catholicis episcopis eidem sacrosanctae Romanae ecclesiae per hanc nostram imperialem constitutionem subiectis in universo orbe terrarum, nunc et in posteris cunctis retro temporibus constitutis, gratia, pax, caritas, gaudium, longanimitas, misericordia a deo patre omnipotente et Iesu Christo filio eius et spiritu sancto cum omnibus vobis.

For the Latin text, please check the source at the “The Latin Library”. Department of the Classics. Harvard University. Retrieved 30 September 2021. URL: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/donation.html

[3] See especially pp. 16-17

[4] Paragraph 5.

[5] Кормчая Книга, 1653, pp. 748–753, URL: https://viewer.rsl.ru/ru/rsl01002437609?page=748&rotate=0&theme=white

[6] Church Slavonic: Кароул.

[7] This refers to Benedict I, although in reality, he did not succeed Leo III – medieval narratives often confuse chronology and historical figures.

[8] Cited and translated from: Карташёв А. В. Вселенские соборы. Клин, 2004, p. 389. Even Russian Orthodox sources quote this anathema and support Pope St. Felix against the heretics, although the wording is purely ‘papist.’

[9] See in Акакианская Схизма’ / Православная Энциклопедия, URL:  http://www.pravenc.ru/text/Акакианская%20схизма.html