What do you think?
Rate this book
Two Paths: Orthodoxy & Catholicism: Rome’s Claims of Papal Supremacy in the Light of Orthodox Christian Teaching
Two different paths. In the West, for about a thousand years, the Roman Catholic church has claimed papal supremacy over the entire Christian world. In the East, since the first centuries, the Eastern Orthodox Church has remained faithful to the Church's original conciliar local churches meeting together in council. How did these two paths develop? What were the cultural, historical, and theological issues that led to their development? What are the Roman Catholic claims about the Orthodox and vice versa? In Two Paths, Michael Whelton dives deeply into Roman Catholic sources to document the development of papal 1) Saint Peter and the papacy 2) The ecumenical councils and the papacy 3) The Filioque 4) The Gregorian Revolution and its effects on Roman Catholicism 5) The influence of falsified documents such as the "Donation of Constantine" on the rise of the papacy- Papal infallibility 6) The Council of Constance, and the First Vatican Council 7) The Second Vatican Council. Whelton also uses ancient Christian sources to document the development of the Orthodox conciliar vision of the Church, from the first Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) through the Seventh Ecumenical Council. For layman and scholar alike, Whelton's work is the best and fullest work dealing with this topic from an Orthodox perspective in the English language.
199 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 18, 2020
60 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
About the author
Michael Whelton
9 books6 followersMichael Whelton is an Orthodox writer. He is the author of the widely received Two Paths: Papal Monarchy—Collegial Tradition, in which he examines Rome’s claims of papal supremacy in the light of the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
July 7, 2024
Six years ago, researching into ancient Christianity --- that is, Christianity in its first three centuries -- I found what I perceived as a crossroads. To me, it seemed there were two historical apostolic churches that could validly trace their traditions from the time of the Apostles to the time of the Church Fathers to date: Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism [disclaimer: I am not trying to provoke a religious debate, only expressing my own conclusions based upon the evidence I found. I mean no offense to other groups] Which one should I pursue, I wondered?
While I try in these reviews to avoid too many personal ruminations, I found Roman Catholicism's claims of papal supremacy and papal infallibility to be difficult to digest in the light of how the Church actually functioned in its first three centuries --- as well as the reality in which papal supremacy played out in practice during the Middle Ages. Consequently, I concluded that further research into Orthodoxy was warranted -- this ultimately leading to my decision to convert to Orthodox Christianity.
Nevertheless, having listened to EWTN's excellent show "Call to Communion" with Dr. David Anders, I do concede that the Roman Catholic Church has compelling arguments for why it believes what it does about the Papacy. No doubt, the influence of the Papacy and the power it's wielded --- whether you like it or not --- has fundamentally influenced the course of history profoundly. So I think it's interesting to take a look at this issue, papal infallibility, that's been a component of this.
The author of this book is a devout former Roman Catholic who converted to Orthodox Christianity who reexamines critically Rome's claims to supremacy and infallibility.
I found that this book --- at least from my perspective --- plows new ground in the sense of bringing to light many of the facts of Church history that challenge the Papacy's claims on these matters. For example, during the first five centuries of Christianity at least, it's apparent that the Bishop of Rome worked in concert with the patriarchs of the other four major centers of Christianity: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, to deal with the major controversies facing the Church ---- that the Church was not governed via unilateral decrees and bulls issued from the Vatican.
In addition, there have been popes anathematized as heretics via church councils --- which flies into the narrative of infallibility -- evidence that the governance of the Church was conciliar vice monarchical. Another interesting data point, there have been doctrinal pronouncements made by earlier popes later rejected by later popes. Were the earlier ones not infallible?
Finally, the author delves into Vatican I. Prior to Vatican I (1870), the present doctrine of infallibility was not universally held throughout the Roman Catholic Church --- and the author provides evidence in support of this via statements of various church hierarchs including even popes prior to 1870.
It's a well written book providing much food for thought. As an Orthodox Christian, it is my hope that, someday, the wounds and divisions between us of the Great Schism and of the Fourth Crusade will be healed, and the two great wings of Christianity, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, will be in communion as brothers and sisters. However, the matters of papal supremacy and infallibility are major obstacles to this event, and, without it being resolved, it's difficult to see this ever coming to pass in my lifetime. I recommend this book to Christians of all traditions desiring to learn more about this issue in Christianity today.
While I try in these reviews to avoid too many personal ruminations, I found Roman Catholicism's claims of papal supremacy and papal infallibility to be difficult to digest in the light of how the Church actually functioned in its first three centuries --- as well as the reality in which papal supremacy played out in practice during the Middle Ages. Consequently, I concluded that further research into Orthodoxy was warranted -- this ultimately leading to my decision to convert to Orthodox Christianity.
Nevertheless, having listened to EWTN's excellent show "Call to Communion" with Dr. David Anders, I do concede that the Roman Catholic Church has compelling arguments for why it believes what it does about the Papacy. No doubt, the influence of the Papacy and the power it's wielded --- whether you like it or not --- has fundamentally influenced the course of history profoundly. So I think it's interesting to take a look at this issue, papal infallibility, that's been a component of this.
The author of this book is a devout former Roman Catholic who converted to Orthodox Christianity who reexamines critically Rome's claims to supremacy and infallibility.
I found that this book --- at least from my perspective --- plows new ground in the sense of bringing to light many of the facts of Church history that challenge the Papacy's claims on these matters. For example, during the first five centuries of Christianity at least, it's apparent that the Bishop of Rome worked in concert with the patriarchs of the other four major centers of Christianity: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, to deal with the major controversies facing the Church ---- that the Church was not governed via unilateral decrees and bulls issued from the Vatican.
In addition, there have been popes anathematized as heretics via church councils --- which flies into the narrative of infallibility -- evidence that the governance of the Church was conciliar vice monarchical. Another interesting data point, there have been doctrinal pronouncements made by earlier popes later rejected by later popes. Were the earlier ones not infallible?
Finally, the author delves into Vatican I. Prior to Vatican I (1870), the present doctrine of infallibility was not universally held throughout the Roman Catholic Church --- and the author provides evidence in support of this via statements of various church hierarchs including even popes prior to 1870.
It's a well written book providing much food for thought. As an Orthodox Christian, it is my hope that, someday, the wounds and divisions between us of the Great Schism and of the Fourth Crusade will be healed, and the two great wings of Christianity, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, will be in communion as brothers and sisters. However, the matters of papal supremacy and infallibility are major obstacles to this event, and, without it being resolved, it's difficult to see this ever coming to pass in my lifetime. I recommend this book to Christians of all traditions desiring to learn more about this issue in Christianity today.
March 17, 2021
Very interesting book covering Eastern arguments against Papal Supremacy. The author goes over a few pieces of introductory information in the first chapters before launching into one more unified argument across the rest of the chapters (the argument flows seamlessly, but each chapter slightly shifting focus).
The main strength of the book, I felt, was the author's extensive use of sources - namely, that he used sources I had never seen before. For example, I have been studying Roman Catholicism for the better part of a year, and not until I picked up this book had I ever heard of The Donation of Constantine (a Medieval forgery ascribing Earthly authority and possessions to the Pope, "given" by Emperor Constantine). The author even, much to my enjoyment, tries whenever possible to quote and discuss writings from Catholic clergy, theologians, and historians. There were times that I was quite shocked to hear some of the things quoted from Catholic clergy and theologians in opposition to the current understanding of the Papacy, and it absolutely was to a degree that had been (perhaps deceptively) glossed over in any searches I have made into Catholicism.
As for weaknesses, I would point out two main ones. First, the author tends to operate on the same sources/authors for the majority of his claims, rather than relying on a larger variety. He will pick Dr. So-in-so, Catholic theologian, and base an entire chapter's argument almost entirely off of the Dr.'s writings alone. The caveat to this, though, is that it is sort of a "damned if you do/if you don't" situation, in that if he had used too much variety of sources, he could be accused of cherry picking single points from multiple people for support. He is better about it in some sections, though, and will make a claim then support it with three or four different sources, which I appreciated. The second weakness is simply that, earlier on in the book, I wish he had deep-dived on some topics that he left scant. Some coverage of Ecumenical Councils could have been more exhaustive, he could have discussed Pope Leo I and the stricken canon, and there was a time or two where I said, "hey that's an interesting claim, but could you give me an example?" This, though, didn't last once the real meat of the chapters picked up.
All in all, I think it's an excellent balance of approachability and comprehensiveness, though the reader should be aware that it is written very firmly from the Eastern lens and bias. I read this book after internalizing Catholic ideas, theology, and arguments for a year, and I think this book (or other opposing books on the Catholic side) should ideally be read alongside the opposing views, in order to scrutinize both.
The main strength of the book, I felt, was the author's extensive use of sources - namely, that he used sources I had never seen before. For example, I have been studying Roman Catholicism for the better part of a year, and not until I picked up this book had I ever heard of The Donation of Constantine (a Medieval forgery ascribing Earthly authority and possessions to the Pope, "given" by Emperor Constantine). The author even, much to my enjoyment, tries whenever possible to quote and discuss writings from Catholic clergy, theologians, and historians. There were times that I was quite shocked to hear some of the things quoted from Catholic clergy and theologians in opposition to the current understanding of the Papacy, and it absolutely was to a degree that had been (perhaps deceptively) glossed over in any searches I have made into Catholicism.
As for weaknesses, I would point out two main ones. First, the author tends to operate on the same sources/authors for the majority of his claims, rather than relying on a larger variety. He will pick Dr. So-in-so, Catholic theologian, and base an entire chapter's argument almost entirely off of the Dr.'s writings alone. The caveat to this, though, is that it is sort of a "damned if you do/if you don't" situation, in that if he had used too much variety of sources, he could be accused of cherry picking single points from multiple people for support. He is better about it in some sections, though, and will make a claim then support it with three or four different sources, which I appreciated. The second weakness is simply that, earlier on in the book, I wish he had deep-dived on some topics that he left scant. Some coverage of Ecumenical Councils could have been more exhaustive, he could have discussed Pope Leo I and the stricken canon, and there was a time or two where I said, "hey that's an interesting claim, but could you give me an example?" This, though, didn't last once the real meat of the chapters picked up.
All in all, I think it's an excellent balance of approachability and comprehensiveness, though the reader should be aware that it is written very firmly from the Eastern lens and bias. I read this book after internalizing Catholic ideas, theology, and arguments for a year, and I think this book (or other opposing books on the Catholic side) should ideally be read alongside the opposing views, in order to scrutinize both.
December 19, 2021
Good read!
Very informative and well researched on historical events . Michael chronologically outlines in detail the changes in the Catholic Church since the Great Schism of 1054 with the Orthodox unchanging Tradition. His essay deals primarily with Rome's claim of primacy and ex cathedral infallibility.
Very informative and well researched on historical events . Michael chronologically outlines in detail the changes in the Catholic Church since the Great Schism of 1054 with the Orthodox unchanging Tradition. His essay deals primarily with Rome's claim of primacy and ex cathedral infallibility.
March 17, 2022
Well written, well researched, and thought provoking
Two paths was well written, well argued, and concise. The chapter diving into the context and specifics of Vatican 1 and the declaration of papal infallibility were especially interesting and troubling to me. This book has given me, a Catholic, a lot to consider and research.
Two paths was well written, well argued, and concise. The chapter diving into the context and specifics of Vatican 1 and the declaration of papal infallibility were especially interesting and troubling to me. This book has given me, a Catholic, a lot to consider and research.
December 12, 2022
Good Read For Inquirers into Orthodoxy
Like the author, I’m confronting the idea that things that I’ve believed as a Catholic for years maybe untrue, namely papal infallibility. This book also talks about the schism of 1054, filioque, and ecumenical counsels. I would whole heartedly recommend it.
Like the author, I’m confronting the idea that things that I’ve believed as a Catholic for years maybe untrue, namely papal infallibility. This book also talks about the schism of 1054, filioque, and ecumenical counsels. I would whole heartedly recommend it.
February 8, 2022
As a a fellow convert to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism Welton's book was very helpful in showing that the problems Vatican II caused in Rome were prefigured by the innovation in Vatican I.
Highly recommended to any Roman Catholic inquiring into Orthodox Christianity.
Highly recommended to any Roman Catholic inquiring into Orthodox Christianity.
May 12, 2022
Very accessible and concise. Full of bangers. Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are a myth.
January 1, 2024
After I became an Orthodox Catechumen, I learned Church history, and by extension, the broad strokes of the Great Schism. I was convinced that the Orthodox Church was the the true Church completely separate from any of the historical details, but the details of Schism are both fascinating and deep rabbit holes unto themselves. Since then, I've listened to apologists on both sides debate these issues. The fact that this remains a contentious debate amongst those who care in the first place is astonishing given that the weight of the argument is solidly on the Orthodox side.
There is a lot of scholarship on the topic at this point, but Two Paths is a good and brief counterpoint to the various arguments put forth by Rome. If you're seeking a good synopsis that rebuts the RC claims of papal supremacy, this is a good place to start.
This covers everything from the absence of patristic exegesis in favor of the Matthew 16 argument to the lack of evidence for anything approaching a Vatican I mindset throughout the first millenium. What's especially interesting is that despite the acceptance of Dictatus Papae and the acceptance of forgeries such as The Donation of Constantine, papal infallibility was not a universally accepted dogma even in the decades leading up to and immediately following the ratification of Vatican I. The public opposition registered by German Cardinal Dollinger being foremost among the ranks of dissenting voices.
Admittedly, RC partisans are deeply invested in their position and may not be receptive to the counter position. Regardless, I've personally encountered several RCs who know nothing about any of this. Whatever the case, an Orthodox Christian is well served by having this is his back pocket so that you are prepared to either educate or rebut.
There is a lot of scholarship on the topic at this point, but Two Paths is a good and brief counterpoint to the various arguments put forth by Rome. If you're seeking a good synopsis that rebuts the RC claims of papal supremacy, this is a good place to start.
This covers everything from the absence of patristic exegesis in favor of the Matthew 16 argument to the lack of evidence for anything approaching a Vatican I mindset throughout the first millenium. What's especially interesting is that despite the acceptance of Dictatus Papae and the acceptance of forgeries such as The Donation of Constantine, papal infallibility was not a universally accepted dogma even in the decades leading up to and immediately following the ratification of Vatican I. The public opposition registered by German Cardinal Dollinger being foremost among the ranks of dissenting voices.
Admittedly, RC partisans are deeply invested in their position and may not be receptive to the counter position. Regardless, I've personally encountered several RCs who know nothing about any of this. Whatever the case, an Orthodox Christian is well served by having this is his back pocket so that you are prepared to either educate or rebut.
March 17, 2025
Really enjoyed the learning from this book. As a keen reader of Chrisitian authors I was keen for a direct dive into the differences between these two Trinitarian angles and why these branches have become separated.
Mr Wheltons book is clear, informative and a very intriguing read, with a plethora of references to other works in this field and a concise summary of his research, laid out in fascinating reviews of relevant councils and dramatic standoffs between the Pope's and Patriarchs along the way.
I really enjoyed his sharing of his struggles from Catholicism back to Orthodoxy and how clear and certain in his own mind he is about the key elements he had become disturbed with.
With modern Christianity, its hard to know where it is. Catholicism doesn't do the image of overall Christianity much good at all, and the old Christian traditions are under a heavy attack from New Age ideals. But this is a book written by a real Christian who has meticulously made a discovery about himself, and conscientiously has shown his workings with passion and deep knowledge
Mr Wheltons book is clear, informative and a very intriguing read, with a plethora of references to other works in this field and a concise summary of his research, laid out in fascinating reviews of relevant councils and dramatic standoffs between the Pope's and Patriarchs along the way.
I really enjoyed his sharing of his struggles from Catholicism back to Orthodoxy and how clear and certain in his own mind he is about the key elements he had become disturbed with.
With modern Christianity, its hard to know where it is. Catholicism doesn't do the image of overall Christianity much good at all, and the old Christian traditions are under a heavy attack from New Age ideals. But this is a book written by a real Christian who has meticulously made a discovery about himself, and conscientiously has shown his workings with passion and deep knowledge
December 22, 2020
A very straightforward overview and refutation of Papist claims, starting with Scripture, moving through the Ecumenical Councils, and tracing the development of Papal Infallibility as it happened only after the Great Schism. Very well cited and not simply polemics.
December 20, 2023
Pithy introduction to a complicated subject. Whelton provides a good overview of Orthodox objections to papal supremacy. Readers might also find Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck’s His Broken Body and Edward Siecienski’s The Papacy and the Orthodox helpful.
September 24, 2022
Great book that has given me a lot to think about.
January 7, 2025
This is an incredibly succinct and well-written critique of papal supremacy. Simple yet historical, and filled with invaluable information.
July 11, 2023
It's a truly amazing book. Will definitely use it as a reference in the future. God is Good.
February 3, 2025
Whelton presents a fair argument in favor of Eastern Orthodox paradigm, but it he acts as if it is just crystal clear that his view is the view taken by the Church in the first millenium. He finds quotes that are kinda ambiguous regarding the person of Peter and his chair and uses it to undermine Catholic teaching via Vatican 1. He jabs at the low hanging fruit of the Papacy (Vigilius and Honorius), but doesn’t even mention the defenses made by people at the time of these controversies like Maximus the Confessor. And to me this really didn’t feel like an affirmative for Orthodox ecclesial claims.
June 13, 2025
The choice between orthodoxy and Catholicism is not an easy one to make. The author presents his arguments as to why he converted to orthodoxy. Some arguments are convincing, some less so.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews