Description
Infallibility is the doctrine that certain people can be protected from error by God under certain circumstances.
Catholics believe that Church councils exist to define truths. That is, any doctrine proceeding from a valid ecumenical declaration already was true before the declaration and always will be. God’s divine support means that such doctrines carry an epistemic certitude of being correct. What makes a declaration valid is universal intent and ratification by the Pope, whose ratification bears the charism of infallibility.
The Orthodox take a different view: it is possible for a Church council or declaration to be wrong, but some number were infallible. To the Eastern Orthodox, seven, to the Oriental, three, to the East Assyrian, two. Further, no one has the charism of infallibility.
The Orthodox position is mired with logical and scriptural contradictions.
Doctrine
Orthodox Christians believe that there are binding truths of the faith. For example, the Nicene Creed is held as binding, and the Creed teaches the necessity of Baptism. If this is the case, then what a person believes is essential to salvation. If that is the case, then it’s very important that the Church teaches the right things. How do we know which teachings are true and binding?
In the 19th century, the Eastern Orthodox prelates informed Rome of their position in a letter: “[We do not] consider the ecclesiastical hierarchy to be the guardian of dogma. The case is quite different. 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 is the standard method of defining dogma in the Orthodox churches. The fact that a teaching is ubiquitous among the faithful over a long period means it is binding and true. The ratification of an ecumenical council is not an exercise of box-checking, but the time-tested acceptance by the people of God, the body of Christ. This basis is often called “phronema,” which roughly translates to “mindset.” This logic seems fair, at face.
But, what defines the “people of God?” Surely one of the critical stipulations is assenting to divinely revealed truths. After all, the Christological opinions of Buddhists and Muslims are not considered for the ratification of doctrine. So, being a person of God is dependent on assenting to divinely revealed truths. Which means the Orthodox position is that the people of God define the doctrines… which define the people of God. Beyond the circularity of this argument, it is historically impossible anyway – the Council of Nicaea, accepted by all Christians, came with anathemas attached. There was no waiting to see whether the laity would accept or the saints would think favorably of it.
A common alternative is that doctrine is defined by the overwhelming support of the bishops. This can’t just be the bishops at a council, because then the Catholic councils would be valid regardless of Eastern absence. So, the overwhelming support of all bishops. But this has two problems. First, if all of the individual bishops are fallible, how could their agreement magically be certain? Furthermore, there are 5,600 Catholic prelates, and 950 Orthodox prelates; as such, 85% of the world’s bishops have formally agreed that divorce and remarriage is adultery since 1560. The 15% of Orthodox prelates disagree. If one professes that episcopal agreement proves doctrine and then rejects centuries of 85% episcopal agreement, then agreement is not their actual barometer.
Another claim is that a council is valid if it is called by the emperor, validated by the Pope, and agreed upon by the majority of Bishops. But unlike the Catholic position, there is no claim of divine protection from error under any of these stipulations. That means these stipulations are all arbitrary, as none of them guarantee the doctrinal teaching is valid. A court of law may have a valid ruling that is still wrong. Additionally, this is directly contrary to scripture: no emperor called the council of Jerusalem in Acts, and all Christians consider that council binding.
Another alternative is something along the lines of, “have faith in your bishop, the Holy Spirit guides them.” This one is not circular, but self-contradicting; if every individual bishop had such a profound relationship with the Spirit, they would already unanimously agree in the first place. Second, this is directly contrary to scripture: Judas, the son of perdition, was an Apostle. One’s mere Apostolic status does not guarantee fidelity.
So, there is a major problem: even if certain councils and declarations are infallible, the people who declare them infallible are themselves fallible. There’s no direct, clear epistemic barometer of certitude. The only way to discern between, say, the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox is to get a PhD in theology and decide for yourself which phronema is more accurate. But even then, you remain without epistemic certainty, as you could still be mistaken in your choice, no matter how smart and well-read you are, and even the phronema itself is composed of fallible people who chose to read these saints over those saints, or emphasize this over that. This ultimate self-reliance and extensive knowledge seems at odds with Christ’s command that we “become as little children.” What are we to make of this?
Logic
Consider these scenarios:
(1) Say God elects an entire congress to rule His country, all of whom are fallible. A war breaks out. The foreign emperor offers a peace treaty which requires bowing to him. Half of congress declares that this is against God’s will and wants to do battle. The other half think this is permissible. One side is correct, but there’s no definitive way to know which.
(2) Say a country is led by one president and a congress, all elected by God Himself, all fallible. A war breaks out. The foreign emperor offers a peace treaty which requires bowing to him. Congress debates the issue. After much debate, the president declares that this is against God’s will and wants to do battle. But the president could be wrong. Because the president could be wrong, half of the congress remains unwilling to go to war. Again, one side is correct, but there’s no definitive way to know which.
(3) Say a country is led by one president and a congress, elected by God Himself, and promised God’s own personal help in decision making. A war breaks out. The foreign emperor offers a peace treaty which requires bowing to him. Congress debates the issue. After much debate, the president declares that this is against God’s will and wants to do battle. The congress, even those who disagreed, have a moral certitude that the president speaks on behalf of God. The people, sharing the moral certitude of the government, can go to war.
The first two scenarios reflect the Orthodox understanding of Apostolic authority. If everyone is fallible, everyone must ultimately rely on themselves to judge what to do. Even if there is a leader – the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople – if they too are fallible, the issue remains the same. You can keep adding higher and higher, or more and more authorities, but if they could all be wrong, it’s like adding zero to zero. If none of them have any special insight with which to lead, why did God bother appointing them at all? On the contrary, the other example shows that the infallibility of one lawmaker legitimizes the governing process of the entire body of lawmakers.
The Orthodox response would probably be, “no need for infallibility; whatever ends up actually happening is God’s will.” That responds to my particular scenarios while missing the point of them. Consider some real-life ongoing situations within the real-life “divided congress:” The Catholic Church teaches that divorce and remarriage is adultery. The Orthodox teach that it is permissible. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is always gravely wrong. The Orthodox teach that it is permissible. The Catholic Church does not re-Baptize nor re-Confirm Orthodox converts, considering it Donatism and sacrilege. The Orthodox often re-Baptize and re-Confirm Catholic converts. And this isn’t even touching on the schisms within the Orthodox umbrella.
So this is a serious issue with serious implications for salvation or damnation. The Orthodox answer inherently involves uncertainty, which, frankly, makes it a bad answer. Now the Catholic answer actually involves an “infallible president” figure – a person whom they believe God has promised certitude in doctrinal rulings. This is a good answer, as it removes the element of fallibility. But, in theory, anyone could claim infallibility. Is there any reason to think the Catholic claim is actually true?
Scripture
Often, arguments about the power of the Papacy devolve into quote-slinging the Church Fathers’ esoteric and ambiguous opinions. Now, the Church Fathers said a lot of things. And the Church Fathers disagreed, a lot. This is more a source of endless confusion than of clarity. My arguments will instead focus on what is undeniable for a Christian: scripture.
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 and Sadducees 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 specifically ratifies that Peter receives special 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 description of “binding and loosing” again later in the Gospel, when describing the ecclesiastic process for excommunication (Matt 18:15-20). But in the earlier example in Matt. 16, he attributes the binding and loosing related to the keys to Peter alone. These same keys show up again in Revelation 3:7, this time held by Christ Himself. There is no ambiguity that they are the same keys, as 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. Relying on the Papacy for truth is not relying on the wisdom of men, but the infallibility of Christ Himself.
Other Scriptural Evidence
When Moses was about to climb the mountain and 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 thee, 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 first four books of the Torah mirror the four Gospels, and Joshua mirrors Acts. As Moses is a figure of Christ, Joshua is a figure of Peter. As Moses passed on his authority, so did Christ.
Christ’s transmission of His power to cast out demons, heal, (Matt 10:8), preach and Baptize (Matt 26:16-20), confect the Eucharist (Mark/Luke/Corinth) and forgive sins (John 20:23) are clear. But an equally important part of Christ’s ministry was His perfect knowledge of the truth. Consider the many times the Pharisees accused Him or the Apostles of breaking the law. If Christ responded to the charges with impotent conjecture, His ministry would have been useless. We would never know what was true and what was mere guesswork. The Church is the body of Christ on earth, charged with continuing His own ministry. A church which does not have Christ’s own infallibility is simply not Christ’s body.
Whenever God directly gives a name to a Biblical character, it is because they are to become heads 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.
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 (the boat represents the Church) Peter walks to Him on the water. Despite Peter’s weakness, Christ does not let him drown – a symbol of how Christ communicates infallibly with the Church through imperfect leaders. Further, 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 are really depending on Christ.
John describes how Caiaphas, despite being wicked, was still given the power of prophecy due to his office as high priest (John 11:49-52). This is not the only example of God granting charisms. The Israelites without Joshua would be “sheep without a shepherd,” so God supported him directly. The Apostles without Peter would be “sifted like wheat,” so God supported him directly. Christ acknowledges that Hell will never prevail against His Church, and that Peter is the principle of this certitude. If God granted the charism of prophecy to Aaron’s office despite hundreds of generations of separation, how much more would God be willing to grant the charism of infallibility to the Petrine office to secure this vastly more important promise?
Conclusion
The Orthodox churches claim that there are truths necessary for salvation. But they provide no concrete method of discerning what is and is not binding doctrine. They also expressly claim that they could each individually be wrong. The Orthodox leaders do not claim infallibility. If they did, it would be a matter of whether they or the Catholics have more evidence to support their claim. But because the Orthodox don’t even claim infallibility, they’re playing a losing game either way – even if they’re right, they can’t know they’re right. On the other hand, if the Catholics are right, they are certainly the one true teaching authority, and this epistemic certitude paves the way for trust, hope, and obedience – becoming “as little children.”
Now, anyone could claim to be infallible, but there is significant scriptural evidence that the bishop of Rome actually is. 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 of a family. Further, there is logical evidence: if there is no Papal infallibility, then the Church ultimately cannot teach, and Christ’s ministry is over. To say there is no presently-existing infallibility is to say there is no presently-existing body of Christ.