The Russian Church

and the Papacy

by Vladimir Soloviev

Catholic Answers

203 pages, $11.95

To order: (888) 291-8000

www.catholic.com

The Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900) has been described as a Russian John Henry Newman. The comparison is appropriate. Both were brilliant theologians and learned in early Church history. Both had an unflinching devotion to the truth. Newman, of course, became a Catholic; Soloviev's exact relationship with the Catholic Church in his later years is unclear. However, in Soloviev's firm apologetic for the papacy, there is the same keen logic and broad vision one finds in Newman — a clarity rooted in a combination of scholarly brilliance and contemplative intensity.

Soloviev argues that the rejection of the papacy by any Eastern Orthodox is theologically and historically unwarranted. The Incarnation, the perfect union of the divine and human, is the decisive starting point in this matter. That union, Soloviev writes, finds “its social realization in Christian humanity, in which the divine is represented by the Church, centered in the supreme pontiff, and the human by the state.” The divine, being eternal and timeless, is superior to the human. “Heresy [in the early Church] attacked the perfect unity of the divine and the human in Jesus Christ precisely in order to undermine the living bond between Church and state, and to confer upon the latter an absolute independence.” This core concept is unpacked during an excursion through the first centuries of the Church, racked by a succession of heresies attacking the divine-human relationship found in the person of Jesus Christ. Soloviev shows that these heresies — Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, etc. — were continually supported by “the majority of the Greek clergy” while they were consistently opposed by the Chair of St. Peter.

Originally written for an Eastern Orthodox readership, Soloviev's insights and warnings should resonate powerfully with Christians looking for some of the reasons J behind the disunity in Christendom today. He is especially strong in m criticizing the run Orthodox of his day for refusing to “plunge into the mire of history,” some- — thing he commends the Western Church for doing. He writes: “The Eastern [Church] prays, the Western prays and labors. Which of the two is right?”

He excoriates those members of the clergy who confuse the Church with the state and end up with national churches that “are simply state churches entirely without any kind of ecclesiastical freedom.” It is a chilling remark considering it was written just decades before communism overtook Russia with hardly any protest from the churches there — a reminder of the dangers of subordinating the eternal beneath the temporal. Making a point appropriate for any and all groups who sever their relationships with Rome, Soloviev asks, “Why has not the East set up a true ecumenical council in opposition to those of Trent or the Vatican?” Only the unity and authority located and focused in the papacy provides for truly universal Church governance and structure.

In an especially strong passage, the Russian theologian points out that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants all share the same goal: “the perfectly free and inward union of men with the Godhead and with one another.” So, he asks, how are these different groups attempting to realize this goal? Catholics ldres- choose to cross the proverbial sea in “a large and seaworthy vessel built by a famous master, navigated by a skillful pilot …” Protestants each form their own small “cockle-shell” and pursue their indi-vidualistic course with great freedom but with little direction. Those Orthodox opposed to Rome, Soloviev caustically asserts, “maintain that the best way of reaching harbor is to pretend that you are there already.”

Hardly an idealist, Soloviev recognized the many problems and struggles within the Catholic Church. But he also believed the papacy was divinely founded on St. Peter and the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church united upon that divinely protected rock. If asked to recast Newman's famous remark about Protestantism and history, the Russian might have said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be an anti-papist.”

Carl Olson, editor of Envoy magazine, writes from Eugene, Oregon.