The Holy Martyr Gorazd (Pavlik; 1879-1942) The Holy Martyr Gorazd (Pavlik; 1879–1942) is the most prominent saint of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia in the 20th century. He was born into a Catholic family, received a Catholic education, and served as a Catholic priest for eighteen years. Later, he converted to Orthodoxy and was ordained as a bishop of the Czech Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church. St. Gorazd became a prominent missionary who revived and spread Orthodoxy among the Czech and Slovak peoples. In 1942, he was martyred by the German occupiers.
As a preacher in a country where Catholicism was the most widespread religion, and as a former Catholic priest, St. Gorazd could not ignore the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Indeed, he devotes considerable space to discussing these differences in his major works, The Lives of Saints Cyril and Methodius and The Orthodox Catechism (published in Russian as 1168 Questions and Answers on the Orthodox Faith).
In The Life of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, the Holy Martyr Gorazd says that “the split between the East and the West was not a matter of a month or a year, but had been accumulating for centuries.” According to the saint, the main reason for this split was the erroneous doctrine of the Church. He lists this point first in The Life of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and he also focuses on it in his Orthodox Catechism. In this, the saint shows his agreement with other holy fathers, who believed that the main error of the Roman Church was its “proud desire for the bishops of Rome to prevail over the other Eastern patriarchs” (St. Ambrose of Optina)1 and their “claim to supremacy and arbitrary control over the entire Universal Church” (St. John of Kronstadt),2 because the Pope wanted to be “not the first among the brothers… but the master of the slaves” (Ilya Minyatiy)3.
According to the Holy Fathers, Catholicism, by this doctrine, “assigns to the pope the properties of Christ and thereby rejects Christ” (St. Ignatius [Brianchaninov]).4 After all, “Having recognized the pope as the head of the Church, the Catholics have elevated him to the throne in place of Christ and deified him, while placing Christ in the background. The Pope was made the viceroy of Christ, while Christ remains with us always, even unto the end of the world. (Matthew 28:20)... By recognizing the Pope as the head of the Church, they have lost the true Head of the Church, Christ, and are left without a Head… Enlighten, instruct, and save them, O Lord!” (St. John of Kronstadt).5
St. Gorazd’s writings we do not find such harsh words, but we do find a detailed critique of the main differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, such as the doctrine of the pope and, to a lesser extent, the doctrine of the Filioque. Studying the writings of this saint can be helpful in understanding the Orthodox perspective on these differences.
On the Primacy of the Church and the Primacy of the Pope
In the Lives of Saints Cyril and Methodius, St. Gorazd writes that “in the East, there was a growing rejection of the more and more persistent efforts of the See of Rome to recognize the Pope as the supreme legislator, mentor and judge of the entire Christian Church, or, as it was later formulated, the supreme visible head of Christians, while the Eastern Church recognized only Jesus Christ as the Head of the Church and rejected the very idea of recognizing a [common] man as the head… because it perceived this idea as a consequence of a lack of faith in the invisible Head—Jesus Christ—and His living management of the body of the Universal Church... and also as incompatible with the apostolic principle of conciliar solution of Church issues, which was expressed in the highest form at Ecumenical Councils.”6
In the Orthodox Catechism, Saint Gorazd dedicates questions 343 to 388 to this topic. The section begins with the question, “Can a human being be the head of the Church of Christ?” to which Saint Gorazd responds, “A human being cannot be the head of the Church of Christ, as Christ is the God-man, and His Church is the body of the God-man, so it cannot be led by an ordinary human being.”7 He goes on to say more specifically: “The doctrine of the supremacy of the bishop of the city of Rome over the entire Christian Church cannot be accepted, as the Lord Jesus Christ never established anyone as the visible head of the Church... The doctrine of the inevitable need for a supreme visible head of the entire Church of Christ emerged due to a significant decline in faith in the invisible Head of the Church, that is, in the Lord Jesus Christ and His presence and influence in the Church, as well as a decrease in love for Him” (p. 88).
In the next question, the Holy Martyr begins to analyze the traditional Catholic justification of the primacy of the Pope, which is based on the reference to the Apostle Peter as the head of the other apostles and the head of the Church, and as the first bishop of Rome, whose see, position, and dignity are supposedly inherited by the popes. St. Gorazd writes that “the Lord did not appoint any one of the apostles as the mentor of all the other apostles; on the contrary, He warned them not to call themselves teachers or mentors of the other apostles, since there is only one Teacher for them, Christ, and they are only brothers among themselves (see Matthew 23:8–10)” (p. 77).
The saint then analyzes in detail three Gospel quotes that Catholics usually cite to support their doctrine about the pope.
The first of these is the words of Christ spoken to the apostle after he had confessed Him to be the Son of the Living God: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16: 17–19).
Regarding this quote, Hieromartyr Gorazd notes, first of all, that the Catholics explain it as if “the Lord Jesus Christ called the Apostle Simon Peter, that is, the Stone, and that on this stone, that is, on the Apostle Peter, He founded His Church... [However] the doctrine that the Lord founded His Church on the Apostle Peter is incorrect, because:
-
The Lord Jesus Christ called the apostle Simon Peter because, when asked by Him who His apostles regarded Him as, he answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ and thus expressed a faith as firm as a rock in the Deity of the Lord Jesus, and in this connection the word ‘Peter’ means ‘a man who expressed an unshaken faith.’
-
The stone on which the Church of Christ was to be built was not Peter’s person, but his belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. [The fact] that the Lord Jesus did not mean the Apostle Peter was the stone on which He wanted to build His Church, but that stone was his belief in His own divinity is known to us from the Holy Scriptures and the Holy oral Tradition.
The foundation of the Church is mentioned in the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, where it is stated that no one can lay a foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11). The Apostle Paul emphasized that the Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church, because the Church in Corinth then began to divide itself into adherents of Paul, Peter, and Apollos, and St. Paul pointed out that neither he himself, nor the Apostle Peter, nor Apollos, who was appointed bishop of Corinth by St. Paul, are the foundation The Church, but it is only the Lord Jesus Christ and faith in His Divinity (see: 1 Corinthians 3: 3–11)” (pp. 78-79).
From Holy Tradition, St. Gordaz cites three quotes from the Holy Fathers: St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Ambrose of Milan, who said that the Gospel words about the ‘stone’ on which the Church is built should be understood as the faith professed by the Apostle Peter. In the notes, St. Gorazd also writes: “A human being cannot serve as the foundation of any society, even a purely human one, but it must be based on a specific idea. Far less, then, can the Christian Church be based on a human being, even if that person is an apostle. However, it can and should be based on the central idea of the Christian faith, which is the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God” (p. 91).
The saint then proceeds to analyze this Catholic argument, noting that “the Lord Jesus Christ could not build His Church on the person of the Apostle Peter for the following reasons:
-
The Church cannot be built on any human being, because even saints can make mistakes;
-
Shortly after His words about building the Church on a rock, the Lord said to Peter, “Get behind me, satan! You are a stumbling block to me” (Matthew 16:23);
-
The Apostle Peter denied the Lord Jesus Christ three times (p. 80).
St. Gorazd explains the words in the same quotation about the gift of the “keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” to the Apostle Peter as the gift of the power “to bind and lose, that is, to forgive or to remit sins”, and recalls that the Lord granted this power “not only to Peter, but to all the apostles, saying to them: Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:18; see also John 20: 22–23)” (p. 80).
The second quote commonly cited by Catholics to support the doctrine of the pope is the Lord’s words to Peter: I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Luke 22:32).
Regarding these words, St. Gorazd notes that they were spoken together with the prediction of the apostle Peter’s triple denial, and that “the Lord Jesus did not establish Peter as the head of all the apostles and the entire Church with these words, but rather intended to convey that Peter, unlike Judas, would not lose his faith after denying Him, but would turn around and use his conversion to strengthen others in their faith” (p. 81). He goes on to provide similar examples of how converted sinners strengthened others in their faith, such as the Samaritan woman and the apostle Paul. The Holy Martyr points out that it is impossible to interpret these words as Christ’s intention to make the Apostle Peter the mentor of the entire Church, as anyone who sincerely turns to God can strengthen their neighbors in faith, regardless of whether they are a mentor, subordinate, or equal to them.
Third quote—the words of Christ to the Apostle Peter after the Resurrection: Feed my lambs and Feed my sheep (John 21:15, 17).
St. Gorazd directs our attention to the context of the speech from which these words are taken. They are preceded by the question, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” which the Lord asked the apostle three times, “because he wanted Peter, after his three public renunciations, to show his conversion by a public confession of love... The words of the Lord Jesus Christ, that Peter should feed his lambs and sheep, can only be understood in the sense that Peter, after his three public renunciations of his Master, became unworthy of the apostolic office, but after his three public confessions of love, the Lord declared that he would retain Peter as an apostle. [These] words of the Lord should in no way be used to prove Peter’s superiority over the other apostles and over the entire Church, as all the apostles were equally the shepherds of Christ’s spiritual lambs and sheep” (p. 82).
After analyzing the quotes, the saint writes that “the Apostle Peter did not consider himself the head of the other apostles, as he refers to himself in his First Epistle as a co-leader and co-shepherd, and he refers to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Shepherd-Leader, that is, the Head of the shepherds (see: 1 Peter 5: 1–4),” and that “both the other apostles and the early Christians did not consider the Apostle Peter to be the head of the entire Church, as we know from Scripture that:
-
The Council of the Apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria. 8:14);
-
When Peter was baptizing Cornelius, a Gentile centurion, in Caesarea, the Christians of Jerusalem reproached him for this, and he had to defend himself (see Acts 1:15). 11:1–4);
-
The Apostle Paul clearly confronted the Apostle Peter in the city of Antioch, reproaching him for his wrongdoing (see Galatians 2:11-13). The Apostles and early Christians could not have treated the Apostle Peter this way if they considered him the head of the entire Church” (p. 83).
The saint argues that “after the Ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ into heaven, the individual apostles were subject to the leadership of the entire Council of Apostles; [this is evident from the fact that]:
-
Peter and John obeyed, having been sent by the Council of the Apostles to Samaria;
-
When it came to matters of general church importance, none of the apostles, including Peter, considered themselves entitled to make the final decision. Instead, the Council of All the Apostles made the decision.
The Acts of the Apostles records the following important meetings of the Council of the Apostles:
-
when it was necessary to choose a new apostle instead of the traitor Judas (see Acts 1: 15). 1: 15–26);
-
when the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles (see Acts 1:16). 2:1–4);
-
when it was necessary to appoint deacons or assistants to the apostles (see: Acts. 6:1–6);
-
When it was necessary to decide how Gentiles who believed in Christ should be received into the Church (see Acts 1:15). 15:1–35)” (p. 84).
St. Gorazd acknowledges that the Apostle Peter was respected at the Council of the Apostles, as were some of the other apostles: James, John, and later Paul, but “the special respect for these four apostles does not suggest that they were the leaders of the other apostles.”
Turning to the primacy of the pope, the saint writes that “the doctrine of the primacy of the Apostle Peter over the entire Church” was created to justify the doctrine “that the bishop of the city of Rome was recognized as the head of the entire Church,” and for this purpose “it is also asserted that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that subsequent Roman bishops, as his successors, inherit the primacy over the entire Church” (p. 85).
Recognizing that the Apostle Peter died in Rome, St. Gorazd says that on the basis of this fact “it cannot be said that he was also the first bishop of the city of Rome, since the Apostle Paul, who was martyred in Rome, was not a Roman bishop... [And in general] the holy apostles did not have a permanent residence, but traveled all over the world, preaching the Christian doctrine, and where a larger group of Christians was formed, consecrating and installing bishops, and then going to preach the gospel in other places… the activity of the Apostle Peter took place in Jerusalem, Samaria (see: Acts. 8:14), Lydda (see Acts 9:32), and Joppa (see Acts 9:32; 9:43), Caesarea (see Acts 1:4; 10: 24), Antioch (see Galatians 2:11), and Babylon (see 1 Pet. 5:13)“ (p. 86). At the same time, St. Gorazd does not accept the interpretation that the Apostle Peter meant Rome by the name of Babylon. He also adds that, according to oral tradition, the Apostle Peter preached on the southern coast of the Black Sea, in Alexandria, and in Rome.
He goes on to say, “There is no reason to consider the bishop of the city of Rome to be the sole successor of the Apostle Peter, since the bishops who were appointed by the Apostle Peter in other places are also his successors, and therefore they could all claim to be the head of the entire Church with equal rights… In the oldest lists of the bishops of the city of Rome, Bishop Linus is listed first, not the Apostle Peter; the name of the Apostle Peter appears before the name of Linus only in later lists” (p. 87).
In the notes to this section of his Orthodox Catechism, St. Gorazd provides another argument: “The Lord Jesus Christ gave names to the apostles based on their personal actions. However, this was only personal to them and was not a legacy that could be associated with specific bishoprics and passed on to all bishops who would hold those bishoprics. Just as the apostle Simon was given the name Peter for his strong faith, so the Lord gave the apostles James and John the name “sons of thunder” for their zeal and diligence (Mark 3:16–17). Since it is asserted that the quality of the Apostle Simon, for which he was called Peter, is inherited by all his supposed successors, it would be equally true to say that the zeal of the Apostles James and John is also inherited by all the bishops who are their successors. Such a primitive and mechanical understanding of the relationship between the Apostles and their successors is contrary to the spirit of the Christian faith.
The Lord Jesus Christ made it very clear that it is unworthy to argue about whether one should pray in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim, because God is a Spirit and is not bound to a specific place in such a way that it is necessary to pray only in that place (see John 4:20-24). Whoever claims that the fate of the Church of God is connected with a particular bishopric shows an opinion even more unworthy of God, since there was, from a religious point of view, a certain difference between Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim, while, from a canonical point of view, there is no difference between bishoprics within the Church” (p. 91).
Then Hieromartyr Gorazd comments on the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope: “It is impossible for a single Christian, even if he is a bishop, to be infallible in matters of faith and morality, because the Lord Jesus Christ did not give any individual member of the Church, even an apostle, the gift of infallibility, lest they fall into the terrible temptation of pride, arrogance, and conceit. Moreover, there were bishops whom the Church had to condemn, even though they were successors of the apostles. Also, some of the bishops of Rome were condemned, such as Honorius (625–638), who held to the heresy that Christ had no human will… Others vacillated between truth and heresy, such as Liberius, who at one time agreed with Arius, or Vigilius (538–555), who temporarily held the heresy that the Lord Jesus Christ did not have a full human nature” (p. 92).
The saint also points out other inconsistencies that arise from the doctrine that the bishops of Rome allegedly inherited the leadership of the Church from the Apostle Peter. For example, the Apostle Peter died much earlier than the Apostle John, but how can we assume that the Apostle John would have been subordinate to the Roman bishop Linus and his successors, Cletus, Clement, and Epharius? This would be absurd. St. Gorazd also reminds us that some popes led a clearly dissolute lifestyle, and that in some periods there were several popes who did not recognize each other. “In addition, there are contradictions every time a bishop of Rome dies, as the Church would be without a visible head until a new bishop is elected” (p. 93).
On the departure of the Holy Spirit
In the 314th question of his catechism, St. Gorazd points out that “the Holy Spirit has been proceeding from God the Father since the beginning of time,” and refers to Christ’s words: The Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). In the notes to this section, the saint adds that “no one has the right to add to or correct the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Second Ecumenical Council thoroughly discussed the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and took into account the teachings of the Holy Oral Tradition and the Bible about the Holy Spirit; therefore, it remained with the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and not from the Son). The Third Ecumenical Council forbade any changes or additions to the Creed. However, despite this, most Christian confessions have added the teaching that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. The Orthodox Church insists on the words of the Lord Jesus Christ” (p. 73).
The holy martyr speaks about this in more detail in the Life of Sts. Cyril and Methodius: “The West fell into a theological innovation—the doctrine of the Holy Spirit’s origin from the Father and the Son, which gradually became a dogma of the Western Church.”8 St. Gorazd goes on to remind us that this contradicts the words of Christ Himself in John 15:26 and the Creed defined by the Second Ecumenical Council, which was confirmed in its immutability by the Third and Fifth Ecumenical Councils. “However, despite this, theological speculation began in the West in order to justify this innovation. It would take a long treatise to show the incorrectness of this new teaching.” St. Gorazd says that this innovation cannot be justified by the quotations from the Holy Scriptures that speak of the sending of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, because these refer to the economy of God, that is, the action of the Persons of the Holy Trinity in the world, while the Filioque teaches about the eternal descent of the Spirit. The Holy Martyr says: Eastern theologians wrote that by introducing this doctrine, the Latins made the Holy Spirit come from two causes, which violated the unity of the Trinity and His equality. As a result, “Western theologians were forced to adopt the thesis that ‘the Holy Spirit eternally comes from the Father and the Son, not as from two causes, but as from one cause.’”
St. Gorazd then briefly outlines the history of this doctrine in the West, beginning with Spain, where it originated as a counterbalance to Arianism, and where the Filioque was first inserted into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed at the Council of Toledo in 589. St. Gorazd said that the introduction of new creeds and dogmas by the decision of the local Council was “reckless”, since it “disregarded the opinion of other Local Churches,” and was “purely arbitrary,” since “the Local Council supplemented the Creed contrary to the prohibition of the Ecumenical Council” The Hieromartyr then points out that this doctrine was refuted by St. John of Damascus, and there were opponents of it among the popes—in particular, St. Martin the Confessor did not recognize this doctrine. However, under the direct influence of Charlemagne, this teaching spread from Spain to France and Germany in 809, despite the opposition of the prominent Frankish theologian Alcuin. Pope Leo III (795–816) refused to include this addition in the text of the Creed. Nevertheless, this teaching gradually became widespread in the West, and it was officially included in the Creed in 1014 at the insistence of Emperor Henry II, according to St. Gorazd, primarily for political reasons.
In addition to those mentioned (on the primacy of the Pope and the Filioque), St. Gorazd also mentions other differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy; in particular, the celebration of the liturgy on unleavened bread instead of the leavened bread that has been used in the Church since ancient times; the communion of the laity without the Blood; the arrangement of many altars in the church; which, in his opinion, destroyed the communal prayer; and also the introduction of various innovations, such as “silent mass” or multiple daily communion for priests, as well as the introduction of mandatory celibacy for priests, the non-requirement of chrismation and its performance mainly by bishops, and others.
We believe that St. Gorazd’s arguments are of great value to anyone interested in the Orthodox perspective on the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
1 St. Ambrose of Optina. “A Reply to One Well Disposed toward the Latin Church.
Regarding the unjust glorying of the papists in the imaginary dignity of their Church”
https://orthochristian.com/63657.html
2 St. John of Kronstadt. Living Grain. 1
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/nasledie/blagosklonlatin.htm.
3 Bishop Ilya Minyatiy. The Stumbling Block. 2 http://www.romanitas.ru/content/zhurnal/recenz-minytiy.htm.
4 St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov). “The Concept of Heresy and Schism” http://www.pravbeseda.ru/library/index.php?page=book&id=496
5 St. John of Kronstadt. Living Grain. 1
6 Český a Moravsko-Slezský. Život sv. Cyrila a Metoděje a jejich poměr k Římu a Cařihradu // http://www.orthodoxia.cz/gorazd/pavlik2.htm
7 The Holy Martyr Gorazd. 1168 Questions and Answers about the Orthodox Faith, (Kiev, 2009) p. 77. Hereafter, quotations, except where otherwise noted, are taken from this publication, with the page number in parentheses.
8 Here and below, chapter 2 of the book is quoted: Gorazd, biskup Český a Moravsko-Slezský. Život sv. Cyrila a Metoděje a jejich poměr k Římu a Cařihradu http://www.orthodoxia.cz/gorazd/pavlik2.htm
