I was reading a letter by Aleksei Khomiakov written in response to a letter that called for holy war against the Photians (Orthodox) by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Paris Marie-Domnique-Auguste Sibur. At the time the Crimean War was going on. This war pitted armies of majority RC, Protestant, and Muslim nations against a primarily Orthodox foe. The Archbishop called it a holy war of religion to rid the world of the heresy of the Photians. Because of this some of the statements in Khomiakovs response letter may sound a little harsh to modern ears but he make some interesting points so I wanted to show it. He wrote this reply 1855:
I have said that, from the early times of the Christianity until the great Western schism, knowledge of the divine truths had been considered to belong to the totality of the Church united by the spirit of charity and love. This doctrine, preserved to the present, has recently been proclaimed publicly by a unanimous agreement of the patriarchs and all the Christians of the East.
In the ninth century the West, unfaithful to the tradition of the Church appropriated the right to alter the ecumenical creed without consulting with its Eastern brothers and sisters, and this at the very moment when the latter showed a fraternal deference to the West by submitting to it for its approval the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. What was the inevitable logical consequence of this separated from the moral principle of love expressed by the unanimity of the Church, a protestant anarchy was established in practice. Every diocese could appropriate vis-à-vis the Western patriarchate the right that the latter appropriated vis-à-vis the totality of the Church; every parish could appropriate this right vis-à-vis the diocese; every individual could appropriate it vis-à-vis all other individuals.
No sophistry could allow one to avoid this consequence. Either the truth of the faith is given to the union of all and to their mutual love in Jesus Christ, or it can be given to every individual without regard to other individuals. In order to avoid this consequence and the resulting anarchy, it was necessary to replace the moral law that was found to be constraining the young pride of the Germano-Roman nations by some new law, whether inner or external, which could give an indisputable authority to the decisions of the eccelesiastical society in the west, or which could at least appear to give such authority. This need gradually led to the idea of infallibility of the Pope. In fact his administrative and judicial supremacy (which, in itself, does not withstand serious criticism) could not, even if it were admitted in its broadest sense, serve to justify a schismatic doctrine or act.
Neither could it be justified by conditional infallibility (that is one that requires that a Papal decision be in agreement with the totality of the Church), since a new dogmatic decision was introduced in the ecumenical creed without consultation with the Eastern patriarchates, none of which was even informed. So as not to remain schismatic in the eyes of the Church or to justify by its example all license of Protestantism, Romanism felt it necessary to attribute an absolute infallibility to the Bishop of Rome. That is the inevitable consequence that was , in the end, accepted by a very large number of Latinizers and that should have been accepted by all of them.
This absolute infallibility, however, has never been recognized as an indisputable dogma and is still not recognized as such at the present time [ 1855]. On the other hand this papal infallibility had been completely ignored in the early Church (even the Latinizers themselves acknowledge this). Papal infallibility was publicly denied by the fathers in the early Church (witness the work of St Hippolytus and the condemnation pronounced by an ecumenical council against the memory of [Pope] Honorius for his error in dogma). Papal infallibility was not even referred to in the first discussions of the Latins against the Greeks, nor was it mentioned in later conferences. In the end, Papal infallibility is apparently only a conditional principle accepted retrospectively and by necessity- in order to justify an illegal act prior to it.
The Romans therefore have no other support for their schism than a principle who conditionality they themselves are aware of. On the other hand, taking as its point of departure the opinion that the West used a legitimate right in altering the creed and having lost all memory of the moral interdependence in which the diocese of the early Church found themselves, but not being able to feel itself subject to the conditional principle, Protestantism arrived at the inevitable conclusion that every country, every dioceses, and finally , every individual has a right equal to that of the Western patriarchate to separate itself from the totality of the Church and to create a creed or belief of their own liking.
I have said that, from the early times of the Christianity until the great Western schism, knowledge of the divine truths had been considered to belong to the totality of the Church united by the spirit of charity and love. This doctrine, preserved to the present, has recently been proclaimed publicly by a unanimous agreement of the patriarchs and all the Christians of the East.
In the ninth century the West, unfaithful to the tradition of the Church appropriated the right to alter the ecumenical creed without consulting with its Eastern brothers and sisters, and this at the very moment when the latter showed a fraternal deference to the West by submitting to it for its approval the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. What was the inevitable logical consequence of this separated from the moral principle of love expressed by the unanimity of the Church, a protestant anarchy was established in practice. Every diocese could appropriate vis-à-vis the Western patriarchate the right that the latter appropriated vis-à-vis the totality of the Church; every parish could appropriate this right vis-à-vis the diocese; every individual could appropriate it vis-à-vis all other individuals.
No sophistry could allow one to avoid this consequence. Either the truth of the faith is given to the union of all and to their mutual love in Jesus Christ, or it can be given to every individual without regard to other individuals. In order to avoid this consequence and the resulting anarchy, it was necessary to replace the moral law that was found to be constraining the young pride of the Germano-Roman nations by some new law, whether inner or external, which could give an indisputable authority to the decisions of the eccelesiastical society in the west, or which could at least appear to give such authority. This need gradually led to the idea of infallibility of the Pope. In fact his administrative and judicial supremacy (which, in itself, does not withstand serious criticism) could not, even if it were admitted in its broadest sense, serve to justify a schismatic doctrine or act.
Neither could it be justified by conditional infallibility (that is one that requires that a Papal decision be in agreement with the totality of the Church), since a new dogmatic decision was introduced in the ecumenical creed without consultation with the Eastern patriarchates, none of which was even informed. So as not to remain schismatic in the eyes of the Church or to justify by its example all license of Protestantism, Romanism felt it necessary to attribute an absolute infallibility to the Bishop of Rome. That is the inevitable consequence that was , in the end, accepted by a very large number of Latinizers and that should have been accepted by all of them.
This absolute infallibility, however, has never been recognized as an indisputable dogma and is still not recognized as such at the present time [ 1855]. On the other hand this papal infallibility had been completely ignored in the early Church (even the Latinizers themselves acknowledge this). Papal infallibility was publicly denied by the fathers in the early Church (witness the work of St Hippolytus and the condemnation pronounced by an ecumenical council against the memory of [Pope] Honorius for his error in dogma). Papal infallibility was not even referred to in the first discussions of the Latins against the Greeks, nor was it mentioned in later conferences. In the end, Papal infallibility is apparently only a conditional principle accepted retrospectively and by necessity- in order to justify an illegal act prior to it.
The Romans therefore have no other support for their schism than a principle who conditionality they themselves are aware of. On the other hand, taking as its point of departure the opinion that the West used a legitimate right in altering the creed and having lost all memory of the moral interdependence in which the diocese of the early Church found themselves, but not being able to feel itself subject to the conditional principle, Protestantism arrived at the inevitable conclusion that every country, every dioceses, and finally , every individual has a right equal to that of the Western patriarchate to separate itself from the totality of the Church and to create a creed or belief of their own liking.
