References to the fact that much has been written about the life, work and printing activities of Saint Antim of Ivirean are to be believed, yet what is almost unbelievable is the complete neglect or utter avoidance of Antim’s printed works with polemical content, which still await, more than three centuries after they were printed, translators and editors whose work might provide Orthodox believers with a useful and accessible edition. Among these, we would particularly mention the Greek and Romanian printed works with a wealth of content directed against the Papists, which, even today, after so much attention has been paid to anti-Mian printing activity, have not been translated (Τομος Χαρας, Râmnic, 1705) or transliterated (Book or Light on the Division of the Papists, Snagov, 1699) into modern Romanian, to enable a full understanding of the 18th-century context outlined by the content of these printed works.
In the present study, we examine Book on the Division of the Papists, printed by Saint Antim at Snagov Monastery in 1699 and distributed free of charge through the generosity of Saint Constantin Brâncoveanu (a gesture of great significance) to all ‘well-disposed’ readers, both to bear witness to the true faith and to accurately expose the falsehoods propagated by the Papists.
The historical and religious context of those times is clearly set out in the study by Father Professor Ioan Rămureanu, who informs us that at the end of the 17th century, Catholic propaganda ‘achieved, with the help of the Jesuits, achieved unexpected results in Transylvania’ through ‘the union concluded with Rome on 7 October 1698 and finalised on 14 September 1700’, an event which shook the Romanian Principalities and caused everyone, “from the metropolitans and boyars of the country down to the devout people”, to feel “the danger of Catholic influence encroaching upon the affairs of Romanian Orthodoxy, and they sought to counter it by all means or to limit its effects as far as possible”1.
At the heart of this movement to defend Orthodoxy against Catholicism, if not right in the midst of it, stood Saint Antim of Ivire, who made a unique contribution to this cause through printing, on the one hand by producing Greek printed works, for the Orthodox Greeks living under Muslim rule had neither the necessary means nor the permission of their rulers to print books 2, and on the other hand through Romanian printed works, in order to provide practical assistance to Romanians in their role as defenders of the Orthodox heritage so coveted by Western propaganda. Whether Saint Antim was guided or encouraged in this work by the fervent Patriarch Dositei of Jerusalem can only be weighed against his own skill, which made him a capable instrument whilst serving under a high-ranking church official; but it is more likely that Saint Antim wished to contribute to the defence of Romanian Orthodoxy, a fact fully demonstrated first by the translation of Greek works into Romanian, and then by their printing. The Romanian printed work from Snagov is, of course, the translation of the Manual against the Schism of the Papists, printed in Greek in Bucharest in 1690, also at the expense of Saint Constantine Brâncoveanu, the work of the learned hieromonk Maxim of the Peloponnese, a pupil of the renowned Patriarch of Alexandria, Meletius Pigas. The fact that Saint Antim translated (according to some hypotheses) and had this book reprinted underpins his efforts to suppress the circulation and spread of Catholic heresies, as well as to explain to the Romanian people, in a precise and detailed manner, why their teachings are erroneous.
The typographical and content-related details of this book were only satisfactorily recorded by Father Niculae Șerbănescu 3, in all other studies published both before and after the commemorative year dedicated to Saint Antim; elsewhere, it was merely mentioned amongst the list of Antim’s printed works and left in the shadows. The current need to bring it to light, and the necessity arising from the ecclesiological trends of our times, lead us to reproduce rather substantial sections of its content.
The full title of the book, Book or Light with Sound Arguments from the Dogmas of the Eastern Church Concerning the Schism of the Papists, Discovered and Compiled by the Most Learned Hieromonk Maxim of the Peloponnese 4, is as comprehensive as can be, with the following details providing further insight: ‘Now printed for the first time in the Romanian language by the command and at the entire expense of the most enlightened and exalted Lord and Ruler of all Wallachia, Ioan Konstantin Voivode. Guided by the Orthodox faith, His Holiness Metropolitan Kyr Theodosius. And it was printed at the Princely Press in the Holy Monastery at Snagov. In the year of the world’s salvation 1699, in the month of April, by the humble Hieromonk Antim Ivireanul. ‘To be given as a gift to the Orthodox’. As is the case with most of Antim’s printed works, political verses also adorn the verso of the first page of this book and are composed ‘upon the coat of arms of the most illustrious and exalted Lord, Ioan Konstantin Basarab Voivode. The most illustrious coat of arms of the Romanian land,/ With which the ancient Basarab dynasty was crowned./ It was bestowed upon the Most Reverend Lord Constantine/ Because from their blessed lineage they sprang forth/ And their good deeds, as far as possible, he fulfils/ And the country he guards against all enemies./ May God grant him many years of peaceful reign/ And may his blessed name live on forever.”
The preface, however, is the distinctive feature of this printed work, attributed pre-eminently to Saint Antim, drawing on passages from the original Greek text, to which are added the specific contributions of the person who undertook the task of translating and printing it in Romanian, for those ‘Orthodox Christians who happen to read it’. The main subject of the introductory text is presented without any elements of diversity and launches, without detours or restraint, an attack on the Latins who ‘distort and subvert and even the teachings of the holy councils, distort and subvert them. Sometimes misinterpreting them, at other times tearing them apart, and disrupting their proper order. And when they cannot fulfil their designs through such devious means, they combine the vain wisdom of this age—or rather, let us say, the deceptive wisdom—with Orthodoxy. That is to say, they fabricate unknown testimonies out of their own heads, put forward hidden epistles, invent dreams and worldly revelations, bring forth fanciful tales, untrue and unheard-of parables, and heretical writings […] Then, seeing that even with all such things they achieve nothing, they revile, mock, curse and blaspheme. And they commit other acts against us, without shame or humanity’5 Following this description, Saint Antim subjectively testifies that he encountered obstacles in its printing, for this ‘little book by the blessed Maxim’, many sought to prevent it from being printed, for it speaks the truth that has been revealed, proven and clarified. Yet truth prevailed, and it was the Lord’s will that it should be printed, for the remembrance of the wise. And for the instruction and edification of all Orthodox Christians’6’. The concluding part of the preface reveals that Saint Antim ‘wrote it, had it printed and edited it’, since, as in other printed works, he asks his readers for their prayers, so that ‘by showing yourselves grateful to the One who watches over your salvation, you may attain the lot of the saved…’.
The contents of the book are summarised on the first numbered page, which also marks the beginning of the treatise ‘on the new appointment of the Pope of Rome as the head of all. On the descent of the Holy Spirit. On unleavened bread. For the transformation, that is, the change in the nature of the sacraments. For the purifying fire, which they call Purgatory. And for the joy received by the righteous, that is, that they have received their promise in full”7.
The most significant chapters, both in terms of quality and quantity, strike a forceful blow at the ‘Pope’s primacy’, as shown in Chapter 1, which is the ‘first cause’ for the separation of ‘the West from the East’ and ‘so that you may understand and know well what the Pope demands and desires to achieve within the Church of Christ’. We shall focus on the nearly 50 pages dealing with the ‘troubled rule of the Pope’ which has become ‘the cause of the division of the churches’.
Chapter 2 teaches us, much like a definition from a textbook, ‘what papism is, or what the Pope himself claims it to be’, and the defining answer never fails to appear: ‘The Pope desires to be, after Christ alone, the sole judge, administrator, head and ruler, nobleman, lord, first among equals, and steward of Christ. To make laws and bind them, and to alter dogmas, to establish whatever he wishes, and to remove, to add, and for no one to have the power to tell him whether he is doing right or wrong. […] Such dominion he desires for himself, and such obedience and submission from the whole Church as Christ himself had when he was in the world in the flesh, and even more so’8
Chapter 3 delves deeper into the subject by unravelling the references to Scripture: ‘that the authority which the Pope claims the blessed Peter once held alone, and which he therefore ought now to hold’, was in fact ‘given by Christ(Christ) to His entire Church’. It therefore addresses ‘this claim made by the Latins that Christ appointed Peter alone, above the apostles, to be the teacher, steward, guardian or overseer of the whole Church’, a claim which “is nowhere to be found in the whole of Holy Scripture”9; and so that all may know that this was not the case “and especially the foolish”, chapter 4 shows us “that the Lord gave authority not only to Peter alone, but also to the other apostlesby the Lord’, and five major pieces of evidence are presented as testimony, extending through to chapter 8, which make it sufficiently clear ‘whether Peter had, or received, anything more than the other Apostles. Or whether he had any authority or power over the other disciples. Or to command, or to do something himself, or that the others could not do anything unless he held them by command and authority’10. The addressees are then spoken to in the imperative: “Behold, listen, you Papists, who say that Peter is first among the other disciples”, for “not even that blessed one ever desired such a thing from Christ” and nowhere is it to be found “that He gave him primacy and did not give it to the others. Or that He made the others servants, and him their master”. The proof of Peter’s honour, on a par with that of all the apostles, is justified both by their calling to follow Christ and by their being sent out to preach to the whole world and ‘to all creation’, a fact which the orator marvels at in the most sublime manner: ‘But how can you, Pope, wish to confine the world’s Apostle Peter, or any other of the apostles, to Rome? For they are all received and ordained as princes, teachers and governors throughout the whole earth. In what way do you wish to be the Bishop of Rome in Peter’s stead, who is not merely the Bishop of Rome, but also a teacher and a governor […] ‘Do you not hear, do you not believe that our Lord Jesus Christ not only “before the Resurrection” sent His apostles to all His disciples, “but afterwards”, and not only to Peter “but all of them? Why do you not understand what you are doing, nor what you are decreeing?”11 The author, Maximus of the Peloponnese, shifts his form of address from the third person to the first person, particularly from chapter 7: ‘So why do you, Roman, wish to be Peter’s sole successor?’ and the questions are answered in Chapter 8, which presents the fifth proof ‘that, since Peter died in Rome, the Pope is not, for this reason alone, Peter’s sole successor. Likewise, no church has any special distinction of its own after the death of the apostles who were among them. And since all the bishops of all the apostles are, in fact, successors.” For ‘since Peter’s death left the succession in Rome, with the Pope, why did not Christ’s death also leave the succession in Jerusalem, where He died? And if Rome is praised for Peter’s death, is it not fitting that Jerusalem should be praised for the death of Christ? […] And again. Why is Paul’s death not also called the ‘diadochia’, since he too died there? Is Paul not an apostle, and indeed a great apostle?’ But since this is not the case, ‘and since this matter is not so, we need say no more’. However, ‘if he had happened to die in another place, and another apostle were to come and be ordained bishop in Rome, what would the papists say about that? Would they claim the primacy they now claim, or not? Indeed, they would claim that primacy too, and would say of that apostle all the same things they say of Peter, even if he were one of the Seventy. […] But so that it may be known to everyone, and especially to the simplest-minded, that neither the papists nor those who follow the Latin tradition are right in what they say, it is fitting that we should bring to light the arguments they put forward to strengthen the primacy of Peter, and according to their own sequence. If these are shown, by clear evidence from Holy Scripture, not to be as they claim, then the Church of Christ in the East will be delivered from the many accusations of the Papists and the Latins’12”.
Thus, Chapter 9 opens a broad discussion, shared by both Latins and Easterners, based on the Scriptural verse ‘You are Peter…’ and “with these words and this question, the Papists seek to present Peter as the foundation of the whole Church, the rock, the ruler, the greatest, with the power to bind and loose, and over heaven, and earth, and even hell. Which does not help them as much with their questions as they hope it does’. Chapter 10 informs us that the Holy and Great ‘Basil says: the words of Holy Scripture, which appear to be obscure and veiled, are revealed, unveiled and interpreted by those things which are evident and confessed, and clearly expressed in other passages of the divine Scriptures’, which is absolutely necessary to avoid falling ‘into wrong interpretations, and into forced conclusions of the mind, and into heretical and harmful thoughts’, for ‘the words which the Lord spoke to Peter, namely “I will give unto thee” and others, are neither too veiled and obscure, nor, on the other hand, too illuminated and revealed’. And it is demonstrated over the course of two chapters that what Peter said and ‘confessed’ was not spoken out of his own wisdom or understanding. For this did not spring from the human mind, and even less so from that of Peter the fisherman’. The interpretation of this meaning of the verse is clarified through scriptural analogies which span several chapters, and ‘upon this rock, that is, upon this testimony as firm as a rock’ Christ built His Church, which ‘the gates of hell—that is, pagan heretics and every adversary of the Orthodox faith and of this powerful testimony—will not be able to overcome: not even if they were to fall like the winds, nor if they were to come down like the rains, nor if they were to flow like the waters and strike this Church’13
The core of this discussion is also supported by the work of Saint John Chrysostom, the one called ‘Zlatoust’, who referred to Peter as ‘the mouth of the apostles’, noting from chapter 12 that those things which ‘were revealed to Peter, were also revealed to the other apostles’ and that he merely ‘spoke on behalf of all the others as a common voice’; and, in chapter 13, ‘that the other apostles too are heads, pillars, salt and light’. ‘So what else can the Latins put forward to demonstrate Peter’s authority, so that they might find a reason to demonstrate their own authority in the Church of Christ?’ For, in chapter 17, ‘at the words “Feed my sheep”, he made them all shepherds’ and ‘Peter can never be called a shepherd over the other apostles’. And in chapter 18, we learn “that Christ alone is the true foundation of the Church. And the 12 apostles are the 12 stones and 12 foundations laid precisely upon Christ’. After frequent clarifications regarding the meanings of the scriptural verses, the polemic concludes once again with questions that call the other side to account in a reproachful tone: ‘Do you hear how the theologians understand the words of the Gospel, and how you Latins interpret them, so that you may carry out your own wicked will? Where in these words is Peter’s primacy amongst the apostles? Which apostles did Peter ever rule over? Or which did he strengthen even in the slightest? Or which of the other apostles denied Christ as he did, so that he might strengthen them?’14
Chapter 21, in turn, introduces another argument on which the Latins base the papal primacy, ‘in that the Latins, wrongly naming the Church both visible and invisible’, make ‘two heads, one unseen and the other seen’, a distinction which no one makes, neither in Scripture nor amongst the Fathers, ‘except you who, placing your hope in your great wisdom—or rather, place your hope in deceptive philosophy and in false syllogisms. […] For both the visible and the invisible Church are one, and not two. O you who make laws against the truth! You are bolder not only than Paul but even than Christ. For Christ Himself does not divide the Church into the visible and the invisible’, and of all ‘things visible and invisible, there is one Head, Christ alone’15 In chapter 23: ‘You say that, following Christ, a greater head governs the Church of Christ. But who is that greater and most exalted head, O Latin lords? You say no one other than the Bishop of Rome, your Pope. But when did Christ make the Bishop of Rome the greater head, or the greater high priest, to govern His Church in His stead? When did He call the Pope and say to him, ‘Behold, I appoint and ordain you in Rome as the greater high priest, that you may be the greater head to govern the Church in My stead’?”
Chapter 25 reaches its climax, drawing the conclusion regarding the consequences of false teachings: ‘And if we too, together with the Latins, were to say that Christ is the head of the invisible Church, and the Pope the head of the visible one; and furthermore, that Christ has no part in the invisible Church, but only the Pope; it follows that the Pope, too, does not have Christ as his head, for he, too, is either visible or invisible. And if he is visible, as indeed he is, and Christ no longer has any part in the visible Church, then it follows that he has no part in the Pope either. And in this way, the Pope not only removes Christ from the Church, but also from himself. And again, he does not bring the rest of the people to Christ, but to himself. Therefore, in this way, they ought not even to be called Christians, but ‘Papists’16”. And so, one by one, the chapters expose the erroneous teachings of the Catholics and refute them; their arguments on the subjects of papal primacy, infallibility and supremacy are countered with powerful reasoning and in an unrivalled philosophical style. In the same way, the other topics concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, unleavened bread, the transubstantiation of the sacraments and purgatory are also addressed, their succinct clarification being both necessary and extremely useful.
The author does not employ syllogisms to prove the truth through rational wisdom, but rather engages in a diligent search for the truth, which is all too easy to say. Each chapter is provided by the author with such a detailed recapitulation that one gets the impression it is a separate, summarising treatise. In this way, he zealously fulfils the plan of a catechesis and devotedly highlights the logical and psychological points in order to establish the truth. The language is as simple as possible, characteristic of the era, thanks also to the translator; any cumbersome phrase is clarified, and the sets of expressions are so well-worn that, at a certain point, intuition gives you the freedom to read even with your eyes closed. With a method that is strikingly repetitive, reusing whole sentences, yet with a definite effect on the ‘foolish’, the work transforms itself brilliantly into a catechism, the interrogative style stifling boredom. The teaching of the faith abounds in verses and scriptural expressions, which are then transposed into roles designed to convey a clear truth. Following a classical approach, at a certain point it unmasks the misinterpretation, satirises it, exposes its clumsiness and deception, calls it to account and, ultimately, demolishes it.
It would be commendable if these polemical works were to retain their place in current research and scholarly discourse, bearing in mind that they do nothing other than round out our Orthodox teaching.
- 1
Deacon Prof. Ioan RĂMUREANU, ‘Antim Ivireanul, a champion of Orthodoxy’, in BOR, LXXIV, 1956, nos. 8–9, pp. 831–832.
- 2
Deacon Prof. Ioan RĂMUREANU, ‘Antim Ivireanul…’, p. 832.
- 3
Rev. Prof. Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, ‘Efforts in the Service of the Romanian Church – Antim Ivireanul, the Printer’, in BOR, LXXIV, 1956, nos. 8–9, pp. 690–766.
- 4
A Book or Treatise containing sound arguments drawn from the dogmas of the Eastern Church concerning the schism of the Papists, Snagov, 1699, p. 1.
- 5
Book or Light…, p. 2.
- 6
Book or Light…, p. 3.
- 7
Book or light…, p. 4.
- 8
Book or Light…, p. 7.
- 9
Book or Light…, p. 13.
- 10
Book or Light…, p. 22.
- 11
Book or Light…, p. 29.
- 12
Book or Light…, p. 36.
- 13
Book or Light…, p. 41.
- 14
Book or Light…, p. 45.
- 15
Book or Light…, p. 53.
- 16
Book or Light…, p. 59.