Why the Pope is Outside the Church - Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis Explains

“For no one can lay any other foundation than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 3:11). That is, a foundation “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” On the “foundation,” says the “Apostles,” but not on Peter, as the Papal Church otherwise believes.

If the holy martyr Clement of Rome is the successor of Peter, since he was ordained by the Apostle Peter, then those bishops who were ordained by the Apostle Peter are his successors, and not just Clement. The Apostle Peter ordained Clement as bishop of Rome, but not of the entire universe. If the death of the Apostle Peter would provide a certain privilege to the Pope, so that he would be the main Church, and monarch over all bishops and councils, then the Bishop of Jerusalem should have such privileges to a greater extent due to the death of Christ in this city. Therefore, the Pope, saying that he is the head of the Church, thereby expelled Christ the Lord of all from the Western Church, and therefore the Western Church remains Christ's widow.

When the sons of Zebedee demanded from Christ to give them the first places in His kingdom, so that one would sit at His right hand, and the second at His left (Mark 10:35-38), the Lord did not say, that this is impossible, because they say He gave the first place to Peter. But “if anyone wants to be great among you, let him be your servant, and whoever wants to be first, let him be the servant of all.” When the apostles, during the Last Supper, argued among themselves about primacy, the Lord did not tell them that Peter was the greatest of them, and therefore He empowers him to shepherd the flock, that he is the head of you all (Luke 22:24-26)). But He said that “kings of the nations rule over them and those who possess them are called benefactors. But you are not so: but whoever is the greatest among you, be like the younger, and the ruler like the servant.” He gave the example of the Pharisees who demand that people call them teachers. But you, My dear disciples, do not fall into this passion, do not seek this primacy, you are not called teachers, “For you have one teacher - Christ; after all, you are brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for you have one Father, who is in heaven... yet you are brothers” (Compare Matthew 23:8-9).  

The apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria when they heard that they had received the word of God there. If Peter was the head and commander of everyone, then why is he sent by others? Isn't that which is not accepted either custom or law? Therefore, it is quite obvious that this smoke of ambition and chairmanship had no place in the God-bearing heads of the Apostles, but they were all of one honour, brothers according to the teaching of the Lord, and also teachers of the entire universe. None of them were specially singled out: one for Rome, and the other for another place, but everywhere each of them had the same power and the same privilege of the Apostles.

So, the Pope, in order to establish his primacy, not only denounces the Gospel, but despises blessed Peter, belittling his apostolic dignity, since he who was ordained as a teacher of the whole universe, like the other Apostles, he turns out to include that its area of ​​activity is exclusively Rome. If Peter was the head and commander, then why did Paul, who was not one of the twelve Apostles, oppose Peter? How was he chosen, since he himself writes about this in his letter to the Galatians? “When Peter came to Antioch, I personally opposed him” (Gal. 2:11). If Peter was the first, then why at the Apostolic Council was it not Peter who made the decision as the head of all, but James? (Acts 15:10-28). The apostles were universal teachers, and none of them had a specific department. The apostles ordained bishops everywhere, and gave them four grace-filled gifts: the first - the preaching of the Gospel, the second - the priesthood, the third - ordination, and the fourth - the power to decide.  

And all this is special, partial, and not on a universal scale, but each in his diocese preached the Gospel, served in the sacrament of the priesthood, performed ordinations, and decided. They did nothing outside their area. Because it was the apostolic charism. The Apostles ordained bishops, not Apostles. None of those ordained by the Apostles became successors or were awarded apostolic dignity. The article of faith of the papists is that “not believing in the Pope is the same as not believing in Christ.” So, in essence, the Pope and Christ are the same thing, that is, the Pope deifies himself. The Pope is a created being, and therefore he claims for himself the privilege that only God has, so that created people may believe in him.

Isn’t it sacrilege and blindness when he wants to be above the Councils, imagining that he is sinless? What is it when he teaches that he is the monarch of the Church? That he is actually God? And therefore, is it not with a shameless and godless decision that he desires to be worshiped and believed in as God? Therefore, isn’t this some kind of fantasy, the blindness of the mind of an idolater? The 35th Apostolic Canon reads: “Let the bishop not dare to perform ordinations outside the boundaries of his diocese in cities and villages that are not subordinate to him. Let him not be convicted because he did this without the consent of those who have these cities or villages under their control: let both he and those appointed by him be cast out.” If the first was the Bishop of Rome, then how could Clement himself write the Apostolic Canon, which reads:

«In each region, bishops should be in charge of the bishop who is in charge of the metropolis and has charge of the entire region...Therefore, it was decided that he should take precedence in honor, and that other bishops should do nothing particularly important did not do without it...except for what pertains to the diocese belonging to each of them. But let him not do anything without the opinion of everyone. So let there be harmony, and let God be glorified.” But the ambition of the Pope trampled both this rule and many other rules (9th rule of the Council of Antioch). The Pope, due to vainglorious lust, in order to establish his monarchical power, illegally appropriates to himself the apostolic gifts of grace. The Pope’s ambition even led him to say: “not believing in the Pope is the same thing as not believing in Christ, so that essentially the Pope and Christ are one thing". He idolizes himself. This excessive arrogance of the Pope, this mania for monarchy has given rise to so many heresies. Where is this golden testament that the Lord left us, “Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find peace in your souls”? Where is this bliss “the blessedness of the poor in spirit”, that is, the humble? Where are all these examples of golden and bright humility?

Pride is a denial of the life of Christ, it is an imitation of the devil, because the apostate forces, as Blessed Synclitia said, may in some way have the other virtues, but they cannot imitate humility. Humility is the most necessary food for all virtues, for imitation of the life of Christ. The Papal Church is an illegitimate organism. Absolute power and infallibility were concentrated in one mortal and sinful man. The Papal Church is not Christ-centric, but Papocentric. The Pope did not endure the third and final temptation of the Lord in the desert, he fell into it.

Source: Ἁγ. ἐκδ N. Παναγοπούλου, τόμ. Α’., Ἀθῆναι. (St. Nektarios. Historical research on the causes of the schism)