What do you think?
Rate this book
Oxford Studies in Historical Theology
The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate
The Papacy and the Orthodox examines the centuries-long debate over the primacy and authority of the Bishop of Rome, especially in relation to the Christian East, and offers a comprehensive history of the debate and its underlying theological issues.
Siecienski masterfully brings together all of the biblical, patristic, and historical material necessary to understand this longstanding debate. This book is an invaluable resource as both Catholics and Orthodox continue to reexamine the sources and history of the debate.
Siecienski masterfully brings together all of the biblical, patristic, and historical material necessary to understand this longstanding debate. This book is an invaluable resource as both Catholics and Orthodox continue to reexamine the sources and history of the debate.
528 pages, Hardcover
Published February 9, 2017
8 people are currently reading
217 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 22, 2019
Magisterial and ridiculously complete. I've read most of the books that have been published in English on this topic and nothing else really comes close; it's not an exaggeration to say that Siecienski has incorporated literally every relevant text re: Orthodoxy/Catholicism and the papacy into The Papacy and the Orthodox. (The bibliography has, by my count, roughly 1,400 entries covering every major European language.)
While there are many authors who cover particular facets of Orthodoxy/Catholicism in more detail -- e.g., see my GR list here, I recommend the 4/5-star stuff -- Siecienski has undoubtedly written the best one-volume overview.
While there are many authors who cover particular facets of Orthodoxy/Catholicism in more detail -- e.g., see my GR list here, I recommend the 4/5-star stuff -- Siecienski has undoubtedly written the best one-volume overview.
February 2, 2023
Really enjoyed this book. It is incredibly objective and allows the voices of the debate to speak in their own words. The amount and variety of sources used is also something to be appreciated. I also couldn’t tell the author’s religious affiliation while reading it (I only found out by googling it) suggesting to me it’s a balanced and well researched book. Would highly recommend!
March 27, 2021
For anyone interested in looking at an objective presentation of the history of the Papacy and its understanding in both the East and the West, this is the book of pick-up. Hardliners on both sides of the divide will likely find passages in the book that challenges their position, hopefully leading both to come to a more nuanced and informed conclusion regarding the Papacy.
The book begins by looking at the historical Peter as well as the scriptural Peter in light of modern scholarship before narrating the history of the Papacy from the 1st to 21st century. On the one hand, Siecienski writes regarding the Church of Rome in the Patristic Era that, "the Roman bishops of the mid-second century did not have the same view of papal power as did those in the seventh. Even the most-fervent Catholic apologists accept that there was a development in the way Rome's primacy came to be understood." Siecienski goes on to note that even though Roman bishops began to make bigger claims about their power and authority throughout the Patristic era, that did not necessitate that the Eastern bishops accepted in practice such claims, "Peter may have spoken through Leo at Chalcedon, but that does not mean everyone was willing to bow to Leo's understanding of papal authority. Debates over the dating of Easter, the re-admittance of the lapsi, the legitimacy of councils (both local and ecumenical), and the arbitration of intra-ecclesial disputes, all demonstrate that Rome's claims to be the ultimate authority in the Church did not find universal acceptance." Siecienski also interestingly notes the early Roman justification for their appellate authority was rooted in custom rather than divinely appointed right. During the Arian controversy when the Eusebians wrote to Pope Julius about calling a synod to judge St. Athanasius, Pope Julius wrote back to the Eusebians, chastising them for not having involved him sooner, "And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the customs has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?"
On the other hand, Siecienski provides plenty of evidence that the Eastern bishops did in fact recognize Rome as the Apostolic See, that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, and that he was the head of the Church, "at the Council of Ephesus the bishops consistently addressed Rome as 'the Apostolic See,' in order to please Pope Celestine's legates. Theodoret of Cyrus praised Rome as 'home of the Apostles' and 'the apostolic see' to which 'men insignificant and small hasten...in order to receive a cure for the wounds of the churches.' According to Orthodox theologian Oliver Clement, by the fifth-century references to the pope as 'successor of Peter' were quite common in the East, for 'in the eyes of the Eastern Church the basis of Roman primacy remained for a long time almost entirely dependent on the presence of the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul...who were still in some sense personally present in Rome.'" Even during the reign of St. Photius when Rome and Constantinople experienced a break in communion, "Photius nowhere denied the Roman primacy or Rome's Petrine foundation, although he was clear that meddling in the internal affairs of his patriarchate was not included among the pope's powers." Even as late as the 12th century (following the traditional dating of the Great Schism in 1054) the primacy of Rome was still recognized by the Orthodox and the Petrine nature of Rome's episcopacy, as testified by the writings of St. Theophylact of Ohrid, "as it concerned the primacy, Theophylact continued to praise the apostle Peter without reservation, writing 'That the Lord entrusts to Peter the presidency over the sheep of the world, and nobody else but him.' Peter had been made chief of the disciples and thus Christ prayed that he would confirm his brothers, 'being, after me, the rock and foundation of the Church.' 'If James received the throne of Jerusalem,' Theophylact wrote, 'Peter was made teacher of the universe.'"
Far too often either Catholic or Orthodox apologists attempt to mine the writings of the Church Fathers for quotations to be used as ammunition against their opponent, but as Siecienski rightly notes, "both claim that their understanding of the primacy is grounded in the writings of the fathers. Objectively speaking, both are correct, even if neither is completely right." Siecienski's work is an invaluable contribution to this highly contentious division between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, with challenges being issued against both sides to look at the history more objectively in order to move forwards towards a possible agreement regarding the primacy of the bishop of Rome within the conciliar structure of Church.
The book begins by looking at the historical Peter as well as the scriptural Peter in light of modern scholarship before narrating the history of the Papacy from the 1st to 21st century. On the one hand, Siecienski writes regarding the Church of Rome in the Patristic Era that, "the Roman bishops of the mid-second century did not have the same view of papal power as did those in the seventh. Even the most-fervent Catholic apologists accept that there was a development in the way Rome's primacy came to be understood." Siecienski goes on to note that even though Roman bishops began to make bigger claims about their power and authority throughout the Patristic era, that did not necessitate that the Eastern bishops accepted in practice such claims, "Peter may have spoken through Leo at Chalcedon, but that does not mean everyone was willing to bow to Leo's understanding of papal authority. Debates over the dating of Easter, the re-admittance of the lapsi, the legitimacy of councils (both local and ecumenical), and the arbitration of intra-ecclesial disputes, all demonstrate that Rome's claims to be the ultimate authority in the Church did not find universal acceptance." Siecienski also interestingly notes the early Roman justification for their appellate authority was rooted in custom rather than divinely appointed right. During the Arian controversy when the Eusebians wrote to Pope Julius about calling a synod to judge St. Athanasius, Pope Julius wrote back to the Eusebians, chastising them for not having involved him sooner, "And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the customs has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?"
On the other hand, Siecienski provides plenty of evidence that the Eastern bishops did in fact recognize Rome as the Apostolic See, that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter, and that he was the head of the Church, "at the Council of Ephesus the bishops consistently addressed Rome as 'the Apostolic See,' in order to please Pope Celestine's legates. Theodoret of Cyrus praised Rome as 'home of the Apostles' and 'the apostolic see' to which 'men insignificant and small hasten...in order to receive a cure for the wounds of the churches.' According to Orthodox theologian Oliver Clement, by the fifth-century references to the pope as 'successor of Peter' were quite common in the East, for 'in the eyes of the Eastern Church the basis of Roman primacy remained for a long time almost entirely dependent on the presence of the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul...who were still in some sense personally present in Rome.'" Even during the reign of St. Photius when Rome and Constantinople experienced a break in communion, "Photius nowhere denied the Roman primacy or Rome's Petrine foundation, although he was clear that meddling in the internal affairs of his patriarchate was not included among the pope's powers." Even as late as the 12th century (following the traditional dating of the Great Schism in 1054) the primacy of Rome was still recognized by the Orthodox and the Petrine nature of Rome's episcopacy, as testified by the writings of St. Theophylact of Ohrid, "as it concerned the primacy, Theophylact continued to praise the apostle Peter without reservation, writing 'That the Lord entrusts to Peter the presidency over the sheep of the world, and nobody else but him.' Peter had been made chief of the disciples and thus Christ prayed that he would confirm his brothers, 'being, after me, the rock and foundation of the Church.' 'If James received the throne of Jerusalem,' Theophylact wrote, 'Peter was made teacher of the universe.'"
Far too often either Catholic or Orthodox apologists attempt to mine the writings of the Church Fathers for quotations to be used as ammunition against their opponent, but as Siecienski rightly notes, "both claim that their understanding of the primacy is grounded in the writings of the fathers. Objectively speaking, both are correct, even if neither is completely right." Siecienski's work is an invaluable contribution to this highly contentious division between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, with challenges being issued against both sides to look at the history more objectively in order to move forwards towards a possible agreement regarding the primacy of the bishop of Rome within the conciliar structure of Church.
March 18, 2021
Before there was Protestantism, Catholicism or Orthodoxy, there was just the Church. Five patriarchs or metropolitan bishops (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome) governed the church. One of these, the bishop of Rome, began asserting that he has authority over the other four and as such the Papal See became one of the greatest points of division between the Eastern and Western church. Siecienski provides a comprehensive survey of this story, starting with the NT view of Peter and ending with the 20th and 21th centuries. Despite the vast number of primary and secondary resources consulted, the author tells the story with lucid writing. Highly recommended for those interested in this significant piece of church history.
March 20, 2021
The best book by far covering the history of the Papacy, especially through the lens of relations with the east. Siecienski is honest and fair to both sides of the debate. He is an engaging writer, which makes what could be a dry topic a fascinating one.
March 2, 2025
The Papacy and the Orthodox is a theological history exploring the relationship of the papacy and Orthodox churches from the beginning of Christianity to the present. It begins with four chapters exploring Peter from different perspectives. The rest of the book traces the history of the papacy and eastern church interactions as they moved further apart but always with the desire to move into more unity. Each side’s terms have never been acceptable to the other, though there seems to be more hope today than at many times in the past. The history is well written and fascinating to this Protestant who has more empathy for the eastern church’s arguments overall. The first four chapters on Peter make the book worth buying, even if you don’t read the rest of this excellent volume.
March 15, 2024
This is a scholarly historical exploration of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic debate on the papacy. This is superbly written and meticulously researched. Siecienski, himself an Eastern Orthodox historian and theologian, did a wonderful job at being fair to the debate and both sides as he walks you through the history of the Christian church. The book is long, but you’ll leave it with a better understanding of how each side sees, and at times misrepresents, the debate throughout history.
March 8, 2024
Despite being one that struggles with history lessons, I found myself enjoying this historical presentation of the Papacy. Very much enjoyed perusing and reading the footnotes, and I’m sure they will inspire future research.
August 10, 2024
The most balanced and unbiased canvassing of the history of the debate.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews