Description
Infallibility means an incapability for someone to be wrong under particular circumstances. If I had “mathematical infallibility,” you could give me a math test and know with absolute certainty that any question I didn’t leave blank is correct. The Catholics and the Orthodox believe that the true Church is infallible in defining doctrine, “doctrine” being teaching on the particular truths which are necessary for our salvation. Like the math test, this doesn’t mean the true Church has the answer to everything all at once; it just means whatever doctrines the Church “doesn’t leave blank” are true and binding, ipso facto. St. Paul calls the Church “the pillar and foundation of truth” for this reason (1 Tim. 3:15). But of course, this information is useless if we can’t tell which Church is the true one. How does the true Church differentiate herself from the endless schism of the Protestants?
The Orthodox and Catholics believe that Apostolic succession indicates the true Church. “Apostolic succession” means that the Bishops (leaders) of a given Church were ordained by previous Bishops by the laying on of hands in a chain going back to the original Apostles. St. Paul describes laying hands on Timothy (2 Tim 1:6) specifically to make him a spiritual shepherd (1 Tim 4:14-16) and give him the power to appoint others as such (1 Tim 3, 2 Tim 2:2). The Council of Nicaea (325) confirms Episcopal succession (Can. 4) by laying on of hands (Can. 19). Christ promised that this Apostolic Church would not err in teaching doctrine (Matt. 16:18-19). The logical conclusion of these points is summarized nicely by St. Ignatius of Antioch (107 AD): “Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the [true] Church.”
The fact that there is an objective way to discern which Church is true is existentially important. The Bible describes misinterpreting scripture as a threat to salvation. Throughout the Old Testament, there are constant condemnations of the error of pagan and Jew alike doing “what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25, Deut 12:8, Proverbs 3:5, Proverbs 14:12, Psalm 12:1-4). The New Testament gives the same warnings about “hearing what we want to hear and preaching what we want to preach” (Matt. 24:24, 2 Tim 4:3-4, 1 John 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1). In the Old Testament, God immediately damned a group of priests who broke away from Moses (Numbers 16). He instituted the death penalty for anyone who disobeyed the Levitical magistrates (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). Peter says that misinterpretation of Pauline letters leads to destruction, and that false shepherds are sent to Hell (2 Peter 3:15-16, 2 Peter 2:1-12).
So, Apostolic succession with Christ’s promise of infallibility solves this problem of self-referential spirituality leading to damnation. But there’s another problem. Today, there are four Apostolic communions: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East. Each of these communions consider the others heretical for (at least) one doctrine. Of course, there is only one truth, so only one can be “the pillar of truth.” Again, self-referential spirituality is a threat to salvation; we can’t just pick one communion out of a hat. I will demonstrate that none beside the Catholic Church have a clear, objective claim to being the one true Church. I call this argument “the principle of differentiation.”
Visible Hierarchy
Often, arguments about Orthodoxy and Catholicism become very complicated. People will mention the Council of Florence, wherein the Orthodox seemed to admit that they were in schism before recanting after an upheaval from the people. Others will cite the fourth synod of Constantinople, in which the Roman Pope seemed to sign off on removing “and the Son” from the Creed. Some will delve into quotes from the Church fathers. St. Ambrose said, “where Peter is, there is the Church.” But St. Cyprian said, “the rest of the Apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power.” Others delve into doctrinal controversies, such as whether the Filioque or the essence/energy distinction is heretical.
But all of these are dead ends. Are we to believe that almighty God would make our salvation contingent on our personal understanding of an ancient robber synod? Or require us all to get a doctorate in theology and learn Aramaic and Hebrew so we can judge whether the Gospels claim Christ had one divine and human nature (Oriental Orthodox), two natures in union (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic), or two separate natures (Assyrian)? That isn’t practical. It’s too smart, too clever; Christ tells us we have to be as little children to enter the kingdom (Matt. 18:3). Ecclesiastes tells us not to be too smart, “lest [we] become stupid” – this is the type of situation it refers to (Ecclesiastes 7:17). And beyond that, we’re trying to judge the principle of right doctrine; we can’t use doctrine to do that!
The matter is really quite simple. God established Apostolic succession so “the pillar of truth” would be visible and accessible to all. But Apostolic succession cannot be the only necessary condition for infallibility. How do I know this? Because several Apostolic communions are presently in schism. If Apostolic communion were all it took to be the pillar of truth, there could only be one Apostolic communion. But there are four. So some other condition is undeniably necessary for guaranteeing the infallibility of the Church. The only Biblical precedent for this situation is the Jewish schism, in which Judah had the Ark, the Temple, and the Davidic blood lineage as visible signs of God’s presence, while Israel did not – and of course, Judah was God’s true kingdom. Consequently, there ought to be a clear, recognizable, visible sign that the true Church is the true Church – a “principle of differentiation.”
Let’s start with the Papal office. It is the most recognizable office in the Christian world, probably in all religion. The Catholics consider him head of the universal Church. The Orthodox have always accepted the primacy of Rome. The Council of Nicaea (325) confirmed that the Roman pontiff has jurisdiction outside of Rome; the Council of Chalcedon (451) sought to raise Constantinople to “equal privilege” with Rome, taking “second place” after her – a canon which was withdrawn because the Pope said no. Two fifth-century emperors and Justinian referred to the Pope as “the rector of the whole Church.” Now, the modern Orthodox contend that this primacy was merely honorific; however, considering we’ve already established that something beyond Apostolic communion makes the true Church the true Church, I would submit that the fact everyone agrees there’s something special about Peter’s office means said office is the best candidate.
This isn’t a new idea, by the way. The Church Father Optatus said, “in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all.” Pope Damasus I decreed “the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by [Peter]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church.” St. Jerome responded to Damasus saying, “I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but [you]. That is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church [was] built.”
Papal Infallibility
Papal infallibility is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in all of Christianity (and that’s saying something). But it’s not too difficult to grasp. It’s an elementary algebra problem, really. The true Church is infallible, her governor being the “Spirit of truth.” The true Church is whichever one has the Pope, the leader of the Apostles. So, if the Pope is the principle by which the Church is infallible, then the Pope himself must be infallible… at least when he’s making a binding declaration on behalf of the Church. And that’s all the Catholic Church declared about the Pope at the first Vatican Council. When the Pope ratifies or declares a universally binding dogma or doctrine, he is infallible. Why? Because whatever Church he’s in is definitionally the infallible one. In speaking on her behalf, whatever he’s saying is definitionally true.
This does not mean the Pope is a good or even holy man. It does not mean the Pope’s private opinions are orthodox. It does not mean the Pope cannot be corrupt, or do horrible things. All it means is that the Pope, being the visible sign of the Church, is divinely protected from doctrinal error. This is not unlike how Caiaphas, being high priest, was able to prophesy – even while he actively plotted to kill Christ (John 11:49-52).
So the Catholics have their answer: the Pope is the indispensable sign of the true Church; ipso facto, this makes his declaration of doctrine infallible. Seems plausible. Do the Orthodox have their own answer?
To be curt: no. For example, the Eastern Orthodox generally recognize that the patriarch of Constantinople is their prime Metropolitan. But no one can claim that he is the visible sign of the true Church. Why not? Because if they did, they’d have to do the “algebra problem,” and simultaneously claim he has the power of infallibility. This has two major problems. First, this office cannot be infallible, because it has been inhabited by heretics who taught error, like Nestorius. Second, if any one Primate has a special power, that power would need to attributed to the Pope, since he is the Primate of the universal Church. That is, if we assert that anyone is infallible, it has to be the Pope. So the Orthodox can never lay claim to a visible office which differentiates the true Church. At least, not without becoming Catholic.
How, then, do they define doctrine? In the 19th century, the Eastern Orthodox prelates informed Rome of their position in a letter: “The unvarying constancy and the unerring truth of Christian dogma does not depend upon any of the hierarchical orders; it is guarded by the totality of the people of God, which is the body of Christ.” This idea that acceptance amongst the people of God defines doctrine as infallible is called “reception theory.” Of course, the immediate problem is that this is circular. The “people of God” whose acceptance is being referred to are those who assent to divinely revealed truth. But reception theory teaches that the people of God define divinely revealed truth by assenting to it. Meaning the people of God… must define the people of God. Whoops.
But the fact that this is circular and the fact that the Orthodox cannot admit that any office has the charism of infallibility means there is no objective way to distinguish between the Orthodox churches. We’re back where we started. Should the Eastern Orthodox follow their reception? Or should they obey the Oriental Orthodox reception? The Latins? The Assyrians? Reception theory cannot objectively differentiate any of these communions. So, not only are Orthodox missing the visible sign of the one true Church, but because they are missing the visible sign of the true Church, they must rely on circular reasoning to justify their own infallibility and must resort to unbelievably obscure doctrinal minutiae to differentiate themselves from the competing communions.
Scriptural Support
Although Papal supremacy and infallibility took centuries to be fully fleshed out, there is significant scriptural evidence for it. I must emphasize that these passages don’t actually need to convince you of Papal infallibility per se. If they only convince you that Peter is the “principle of differentiation” and visible sign of the true Church, that alone is enough to do the quick “algebra problem” to get to Papal infallibility anyway.
Typology: Hezekiah and Eliakim
Hezekiah, son of David, was the most righteous King of the Jews (2 Kings 18:5-8). God revealed that his head administrator was wicked, and sought to replace him with Eliakim (Isaiah 22:14-21). The Lord said of Eliakim, “I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place” (Isaiah 22:21-23). Extrabiblical scholarship tells us that the administrator had many important roles, but the one mentioned in the Bible is a special relationship – receiving and sending messages for the King (2 Kings 18:18, 26, 37). Hezekiah later falls ill; per tradition, he put his house in order to prepare for death (2 Kings 20:1). But he prayed and wept and was healed on the third day (2 Kings 20:2-6).
Jesus, son of David, was the most righteous King of the Jews (Matt 21:4-6). He revealed that the Pharisees were wicked, and sought to replace them with the Apostles (Matt 16:8-17). The Lord said of Peter, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:18-19). Peter had a special relationship with the Father – he was responsible for receiving and sending messages for Him (Matt. 16:17) . The hour approached in which Jesus would be crucified; per tradition, he put His house in order to prepare for death (Matt. 21:12-16). Jesus prayed and wept (Matt. 26:36-39) and resurrected on the third day (Matt. 28:1-10).
Hezekiah is a very clear figure of Christ, unique among all the kings in his faithfulness, and even prefiguring the passion and resurrection. The job of Eliakim – receiving and sending messages – could not be a clearer example of Peter’s role. In Matt 16:17, Jesus says to Peter, “[My Messiahship] was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven,” acknowledging that Peter – specifically Peter – receives revelations from the Father. Then, this power is demonstrated multiple times in Acts. Peter receives a paradigm-changing divine vision which leads him to command that the faith be spread to gentiles (Acts 11:1-18). Peter settles the debate on circumcision (Acts 15:1-12). He defines the meaning of Psalm 69 in replacing Judas (Acts 1:15-26). When Peter declares ecclesial judgment on a member of the faithful, God immediately strikes them dead… twice (Acts 5:1-11).
Christ uses the phrase “binding and loosing” one other time: when describing the Apostles’ unquestionable authority to excommunicate (Matt. 18:15-20). Does this mean Peter isn’t special after all? I ask a counter-question: if Peter weren’t unique, why would Matthew make these separate stories?
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) defines that Christ gave the keys to all the Apostles and their successors. Does this mean Peter isn’t special? I ask a counter-question: were they not given the keys through Peter? Did not all the Levites depend upon the High Priest? As St. Cyprian put it, “[Christ] arranged by His authority the origin of [Apostolic] unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the Apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.” Peter remains the unmistakable principle of unity and, consequently, he is the principle of differentiation and infallibility.
The High Priest
John’s Gospel is a “walk through the Tabernacle” of Solomon’s Temple. John the Baptist introduces Christ as the “Lamb of God,” mirroring the altar of burnt offerings at the entrance to the Temple (Ex 38:1-7). The wedding at Cana, the “born of water and Spirit” passage, the woman at the well, and the healing at Bethesda represent the bronze basin for Aaronic purification (Ex 38:8). John 6, where Christ feeds the 5,000 and calls Himself the bread from Heaven reflects the table of the bread of presence (Ex 25:23-29). The light of the world discourse reflects the Menorah (Exodus 25:31-40). John 17 reveals Christ as true High Priest and intercessor, as the high priest would stand before the altar of incense (Ex 30:1-10).
The verdict of His trial – “I find no guilt in Him” – makes Him a worthy sacrifice (Lev 22:20). He is slain and placed within the tomb – the veiled Holy of Holies (Ex 26:33). John confirms the tomb is the new Holy of Holies when he describes two angels sitting where Jesus’ body had been, just like the two angels overlooking the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:7-20).
When Mary Magdalene reports the resurrection, John notes that he and Peter ran to the tomb. He runs faster and gets there first, but waits for Peter (Jn 20:8). Many think this is just a quirky, funny little detail. But of course, comedy was not the Holy Spirit’s goal in writing the Gospel. It’s actually a very important detail, considering we’ve proven the tomb is the new Holy of Holies. We know that only the high priest can enter the Holy of Holies from Leviticus 16. So John had to wait outside. He isn’t the successor to the High Priest. Peter is. In other words: Peter’s office has an authority and character unique and superior to those of the other Apostles.
Other Scriptural Evidence
Whenever God directly gives a name to a Biblical character, it is because they are becoming head of a family. The list includes Adam, Abraham and Sarah, and Israel. Peter is the only New Testament character whom God directly names. And what are the circumstances? Jesus says that a wise man builds his house on rock (Matt 7:24-27), then takes the Apostles to Caesarea Philippi – a giant rock on which a city was built – renames Simon “Peter,” which means “Rock,” and says He will build the Church on him. Peter is the earthly head of the Christian family.
The keys Christ gave to Peter show up again in Revelation 3:7, held by Christ Himself. It is unambiguous that they are the same keys, for John writes that what Christ “opens [with the keys], no one can shut, and what [He] shuts, no one can open.” Just as Eliakim’s keys to the kingdom of David truly belong to Hezekiah, Peter’s keys to the kingdom of Heaven truly belong to Christ. Christ and Peter simultaneously hold them. This “co-holding” of the keys is the principle of infallibility. Reliance on the Papacy is reliance on the infallibility of Christ Himself.
When Moses was about to climb the mountain to die (Deut. 34:1-8), God bade him to give Joshua his authority, so the people would not be “like sheep without a shepherd” (Numbers 27:20-21). God said to Joshua, “No man will be able to stand against you… As I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail nor forsake thee” (Josh 1:5). When Jesus was about to climb the mountain and ascend (Matt 28:16-20), He first gave His authority to Peter, saying “tend my sheep” (John 21:15-19). Jesus assured Peter his faith would not fail (Luke 22:31-32) and that hell would not prevail (Matt. 16:18-19). The Pentateuch mirrors the Gospels (giving the law), and Joshua mirrors Acts (establishing the law). As Moses is to Joshua, Christ is to Peter.
To judge doctrine is impossible for man – man’s heart is “deceitful above all things” and man’s “ears itch for what they want to hear” (Jeremiah 17:9; 2 Timothy 4:3). But walking on water is also impossible for man. In the story where Christ walks on water towards the boat (which represents the Church) Peter walks to Him on the water. Peter falters, but Christ rescues him – a symbol of how Christ preserves the Church despite imperfect leaders. At the Last Supper, Jesus says to the Apostles, “Satan has demanded to sift you (“you” plural) like wheat,” but then turns to Peter and addresses him singularly, “I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32). Again, when Christians depend on Peter’s infallibility, they truly depend on Christ.
Counterclaims
Orthodox are quick to point out a handful of particular examples which seem to disprove Papal supremacy, but fall apart upon inspection.
First, there were once three Papal claimants at the same time. A council convened, declared that Popes can be excommunicated, then excommunicated two of the three. This would disprove Papal supremacy, which holds that the Pope answers to no one. However, the real Pope amongst the three, Gregory XII, was the one who was not excommunicated, meaning the power wasn’t actually used. Further, he never ratified that the council’s declaration was dogmatic. Now, one might suggest that the mere fact there were three Papal claimants is problematic, but I don’t see how. If one of the claimants had, perhaps, declared a heresy and split the Latin Church such that no one could ever know who the real Pope was again, that would disprove my point. But that didn’t happen. We know who the real Pope was, the Church resolved the situation, and there hasn’t been an antipope in 600 years.
Second, the reported heresy and excommunication of Pope Vigilius. The Emperor, wanting to maintain amity with the Miaphysites in his kingdom, asked Pope Vigilius to condemn a book they didn’t like called The Three Chapters. He refused, since it wasn’t clearly worthy of condemnation and the authors – being dead – could not defend themselves. The emperor forced him to condemn the works, told the council to excommunicate him, and exiled Vigilius until his death. Though scandalous, a secular authority pushing around the Pope and forcing him to make a non-doctrinal, revokable condemnation does not refute Papal infallibility. What would refute Papal supremacy and infallibility would be the council excommunicating him… but they didn’t. The Council of Carthage in North Africa “excommunicated” him, but that was not an ecumenical council, and the Church ignored it, waiting until after Vigilius’ death in 555 to appoint a new Pope.
Third, Pope Honorius. Monothelitism was a popular heresy in his time which suggested Christ’s divine will “absorbed” His human will. Patriarch Sergius, a Monothelite, wrote to Pope Honorius about the question. Honorius’ reply stated that Christ had one will, and his words stoked the flames of the heresy. This seems damning, but again falls apart with basic examination. First, his letter was not a universal declaration. There were no definitions, no condemnations, and no appeal to his chair. Second, his use of “one will” was an unfortunately clumsy phrase meant to express the idea that Christ was of one will, the same way I might say “my friend and I are of one will” to signify that we share a common course of action, not to suggest one of us literally has no will. How am I so sure? Because he was responding to Sergius making that exact point.
The fact that the premier examples of Papal heretics aren’t even real heretics actually serves as strong evidence for Papal infallibility when compared to the history of the other patriarchates. For example: Sergius, the Monothelite heretic who tongue-tied Pope Honorius in the third example above, was patriarch of Constantinople! Nestorius – whose name is the eponym of Nestorianism – was as well. Cyrial Loukaris, another patriarch of Constantinople, was a Calvinist! Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem have hosted dozens of Arians, Monophysites, and Monothelites. Meanwhile, the premier example of Papal heresy is a clumsy sentence in a private letter.
Conclusion
The Orthodox churches claim that there is one true Church, and that Christ protects that true Church from doctrinal error. Since there are four Apostolic communions which mutually find each other heretical, Apostolic communion cannot be the sole principle by which a Church is the true Church. The only clear, objective, visible sign differentiating any of them from each other is the office of the Papacy. The Orthodox cannot even propose a similar concept, because it Rome is the Primate of the universal Church, meaning Rome is the only fitting candidate. This leaves the Orthodox in a position where the only way to choose between communions is to prepare an Aramaic dissertation on the dual (or single) natures (or nature) of Christ and hope you’re right.
Because the Pope is the principle of the true Church, and because all agree the true Church is infallible, it logically follows that the Pope is infallible when making declarations on behalf of the Church. Aside from the syllogism here, there is significant scriptural evidence to support this infallibility. Peter is a clear type of Eliakim and Joshua, both of whom received authority from a Christ type. He holds the same key that Christ holds in Revelation. Peter is the only divine name-change in the New Testament, and direct naming from God always signifies headship. Without this headship, defining doctrine without resorting to circular arguments is impossible.
Furthermore, because the Papal office is the definitive visible sign of the true Church, to suggest that the Pope is actually not the real Pope as the sedevacantists do is to speak against Christ’s promise that Hell would not overcome the Church. If the true Church is actually a sedevacantist sect, there is nothing to objectively differentiate it from the Orthodox. To suggest that a sedevacantist sect is functionally infallible while the visible Papal office is bereft is just absurd.