The Maximus Option

In the seventh century, St. Maximus the Confessor was arrested during a feud with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Although he was Greek by birth, Maximus was known for the great love and reverence he bore for the Latin Church. Maximus was therefore deeply grieved when he discovered that the Pope of Rome had aligned himself with Constantinople.

As he sat in jail, two envoys from the Ecumenical Patriarch came to Maximus. “But what will you do,” inquired the envoys, “when the Romans are united to the Byzantines? Yesterday, indeed, two delegates arrived from Rome and tomorrow—the Lord’s Day—they will communicate the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch.”

Here is how the saint replied:

Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul: the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching.

As it happens, the Ecumenical Patriarch in question was Sergius I; the Pope was Honorius I. Both were anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, for having embraced the heresy of Monothelitism. Here is the Council Fathers’ solemn judgment:

After we had reconsidered… the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God-protected city… to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics. Therefore we entirely reject them and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God…

Because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.>>

The Council then solemnly declared:

To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!

To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!

Now, think about it. The Pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch were united in teaching this heresy of Monothelitism. The secular authorities were also willing to punish those who opposed their errors. Nevertheless, Maximus resisted them to their faces.

What right did he have to go against the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople, the first—and second!—among equals? In earthly terms, he had no right at all. He wasn’t a bishop. He wasn’t even a priest.

But Maximus knew the orthodox, catholic faith. And so he recognized that the teachings of Honorius and Sergius were “quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers,” as the Sixth Ecumenical Council later confirmed. He realized that Rome and Constantinople were both preaching “another Gospel.” And so, where they led, he could not follow.

More and more, we hear rumors of a possible “reunion” between Rome and Constantinople. These plans were, perhaps, set in motion during the (in)famous 1964 meeting between Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI. This agenda was pursued vigorously by the current Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, and the late Pope Francis. Francis’s successor, Leo XIV, has likewise confirmed his commitment to achieving “full visible communion” with the Orthodox Church.

Of course, nothing would delight the Orthodox more than for us to reunite with the Latin Church. As it is written in the Psalms: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” However, authentic unity is possible only if we share the same Faith: the orthodox, catholic Faith. To quote the Prophet Amos, “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?”

The fact is that Catholics and the Orthodox have more than once dogmatized opposite theological positions on several key issues: the double procession of the Holy Spirit, papal infallibility, etc. A true “reunion” between Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics is impossible unless we first resolve these differences.

To be fair, the “dialogues” between the Vatican and the Phanar have yielded some good fruit. Consider the Chieti Document (2016) and the Alexandria Document (2023). In both instances, Rome conceded every major point of disagreement to the Orthodox. This is good news, and more than enough reason to continue these dialogues.

However, we are still far from the day when Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians are united on the fundamentals of our Faith. This is something His All-Holiness used to understand quite well. During a 1997 speech at Georgetown University, he declared:

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation towards one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.

Pat. Bartholomew is (or was) correct. And, unfortunately, the gulf between our two communions has only grown in the three decades since.

True unity is not legal, but ontological. Any paper that Bartholomew and Leo may sign is meaningless, because we do not share a common rule of prayer (lex orandi), rule of faith (lex credendi), or rule of life (lex vivendi). Any “union” between our churches would, therefore, be a legal fiction. It would exist only on paper and not in reality. To repeat: unity is not legal. It is ontological.

For that reason alone, such a union would be not only a mistake but a blasphemy. We would essentially be forcing the Church—the Body of Christ—to become a haven for heterodoxy. And this is impossible. Were we to accept such a union, we would betray St. Paul’s command to “stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught” (2 Thes. 2:15)—and St. Jude’s, to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

When some Constantinopolitan bishops attempted to reunite with Rome at the Council of Florence, they failed in no small part because the union was rejected by every other synod in the Orthodox Church: the Russian, the Bulgarian, etc. Nobody thought that, just because the Ecumenical Patriarch united himself with Rome, every Orthodox Christian on the planet was obliged to follow suit. Of course not.

Bartholomew would like to change that. The Phanar and its allies have been promoting this view that Bartholomew is the “Pope of Orthodoxy”. No doubt they are motivated, in part, by a desire to affect this false union with Rome. (Sadly, His All-Holiness has forgotten much of what he knew in 1997.)

Imagine the Pope of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarch were to strike such a false union. Imagine how difficult it would be for Orthodox Christians to resist. It may be even harder for us than it was for St. Maximus. 

Still, we must resist. We have no choice.

If the worst should come to pass, we must be prepared to stand, like St. Maximus, against both the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch. We must guard our hearts against any new gospel or false prophet, as the Holy Apostle commanded. We must resolve now to defend the Orthodox Faith, confident that we will be vindicated by Christ and His Holy Church.

Read also