Description

There is only one truth; there is no division in God. Christ came to give us the one truth, so that we would “no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming” (Ep. 4:14). St. Paul says the Church is the means of protecting us from deceit and showing forth God’s wisdom (Ep. 3:10), calling her the very “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The importance of this role cannot be overstated. We are justified by faith because faith is the sacrifice of our greatest possession – our intellect – to God. Like the Levitical sacrifices, the faith must be spotless, and the Church is the means of ensuring this (Ex. 12:5). How does Christ protect His Church from being led astray?

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 “hasn’t left blank” are true and binding, ipso facto. But of course, this information is useless if we can’t tell which Church is the true one. How does Christ distinguish the true Church?

Under the Old Covenant, the ordinary judicial authority of the Church was distinguished by the ordinary visible hierarchy of Levitical priests and Sanhedrin, and the extraordinary mission of the Prophets was signified by miracles and prophecy (Deut. 18:20-22). Under the New Covenant, the Apostles and their successors fulfill both ministries. 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). As St. Ignatius of Antioch (107 AD) said: “Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the [universal] Church.”

So, Apostolic succession indicates that the Church belongs to Christ, and the Church which belongs to Christ is the infallible font of unblemished faith. Simple enough. 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” and absolute spiritual authority. I will demonstrate that none beside the Catholic Church have a clear, objective claim to being the one true Church. Namely, the Catholic Church has the only objective, clear, visible, historical and scriptural 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.

While these points are not without merit, they can be more distracting than helpful. The matter is really quite simple. God established Apostolic succession so “the pillar of truth” would be visible and accessible to all. And why did God do this? Because visible signs of the faith are morally necessary for people to come to the truth with confidence. Moral necessity refers to the bare minimum required for an ordinary process to achieve its end. For example, it is morally necessary for me to have a cart of some sort to go to the grocery store across town. I theoretically could carry multiple bags of groceries a few miles home, but I would need extraordinary preparation, training like an Olympic athlete for months. God gives signs all throughout scripture to provide these morally necessary means of recognizing His Church – Sinai, Elijah’s offering, Jesus’ miracles, Pentecost, and so on.

Orthodox and Catholics would agree that Apostolic succession is the morally necessary, visible sign of the Church. However, it cannot be the only morally necessary, visible sign. 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, if one believes that Apostolicity is the only visible sign of the true Church, then they believe God intended to provide His true Church morally necessary signification, but failed. This is, of course, absurd. This leaves us with one alternative: some other condition signifies the true Church. In order to solve the problem at hand, this condition must be a visible sign of unity which both provides moral certitude to the ordinary faithful and maintains doctrinal unity amongst the Bishops.

Let’s start by looking at the Papal office. The Pope is the most recognizable living figure in Christianity, and probably in all religion. Check that box. The Catholics explicitly consider him head of the universal Church on earth. The Council of Nicaea (325) confirmed that the Roman pontiff has jurisdiction outside of Rome, and Sardica, called 15 years later in the wake of Pope Julius overturning an Antiochian synod, confirmed that this jurisdiction was understood to be universal. The Council of Chalcedon (451) sought to raise Constantinople to “equal privilege” with Rome, taking “second place” after her – a canon withdrawn because the Pope said no. Two fifth-century emperors referred to the Pope as “the rector of the whole Church.” Even ancient Orthodox vespers calls Peter “leader of the glorious Apostles and rock of faith,” and Pope Leo, “head of the Orthodox Church of Christ.”

Considering we’re looking for a visible sign which maintains order, a singular leader – a “Bishop of Bishops” – seems to be the most straightforward solution. The idea that the Papacy was divinely instituted for this purpose isn’t new. Optatus said, “in Rome the episcopal chair was given to Peter; the head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’; ‘Petros’; ‘Peter’]—of the apostles; the chair in which unity is maintained.” 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 the chair of Peter. 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. This is what the Catholic Church infamously declared 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 is not algebra which first appeared in the 19th century. We have an example of Pope Gelasius I explaining this concept with shocking clarity in the 5th century: “This is just what the Apostolic See takes great care against—that because its pure roots are in the Apostle’s glorious confession, that it be marred by no crack of wickedness, no contagion. For if… such a thing were to [happen], how could we dare resist any error? Whence would we seek correction for those in error? … What are we to do about the entire world, if, God forbid, it were misled by us? … If we [Rome] lose them [faithfulness to the truth and communion], God forbid, how could anything ever be restored again, especially if in its summit, the Apostolic See, it became tainted, something God would never allow to happen.”

Again, I wish to avoid wanton quote-slinging, but I must give two prominent examples of this arithmetic being accepted by the East pre-schism. First, Pope Hormisdas’ solution to the 5th century Acacian schism with the East. The schism was over a Christological heresy which an Eastern patriarch made unacceptable concessions to. What was Hormisdas’ argument? “It is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ [(Matt. 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved… for in [Rome] the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied… [and in Rome] is the whole and the true and the perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” The same Eastern Prelates who (metaphorically) dug Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen of Alexandria out of their graves to anathematize as heretics accepted and affirmed Hormisdas’ teaching.

Second, Pope Agatho writing similarly to the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680): “Because… Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord… he received… the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church… [has] followed in all things. For this is the rule of the true faith, [which] remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Savior Himself [to Peter, that his] faith should not fail [and that he should] strengthen his brethren, [as my predecessors have done, and now I do] by divine designation.” The Ecumenical Council responded, “we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles.”

Infallibility 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, nor do horrible things. All it means is that God protects the Pope, the visible sign of the Church, from formally declaring heresy. So, this is the Catholic answer: the Pope is the sign of the true Church; by nature of this fact, He is the “epistemic ground” and principle of her infallibility. While one may find this disagreeable, it is nonetheless a valid, non-circular answer with scriptural and historical precedent. What, then, is the Orthodox answer? What is their “principle of differentiation,” and what is the epistemic ground of their doctrine?

Orthodoxy’s Groundlessness

The Orthodox will typically say the Holy Spirit is the answer. But this is just question-begging; what we’re really asking for here is a visible sign that the Holy Spirit guides a particular Church. Other times they will say it’s because they maintained the early faith more clearly than Rome. But this is question-begging as well; Rome would say that she has maintained the early faith, which includes Papal supremacy. Since the whole Orthodox thesis involves rejecting Papal infallibility, they can’t say the Patriarch of Constantinople is the sign of the true Church, since that would make him infallible. This puts the Orthodox in a bind. They have no morally certain means of differentiating themselves from each other. Orthodox epistemology fundamentally cannot escape either circularity or accusing God of impotence. I will give two examples, and their failure will demonstrate the unavoidable problems resultant of rejecting Papal infallibility in principle:

First, “reception theory,” popular among the laity. 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.” Obviously, this is circular, and thus does nothing to help the situation. Who defines doctrine? The people of God. Who are the people of God? The people who assent to the doctrines of the faith. Rome could simply respond by saying she follows the reception of her people instead of theirs! Even beyond this, the idea that a council requires the assent of the people is ridiculous. Neither the Apostolic Council (the model for ecumenical councils) nor any previous Councils awaited reception; they came with anathemas attached.

Orthodox who recognize this issue typically allege the “Pentarchy principle” instead. This is the theory that the consent of all five Patriarchs – as opposed to Rome alone – is the epistemic foundation of doctrine. Often, they will cite Nicaea II’s explanation as to why the preceding robber council, Hieria, was not ecumenical: “It [the Council of Hieria] did not enjoy the cooperation of the then Pope of Rome or his priests, neither by means of his representatives or an encyclical letter, as is the rule for councils; nor did it win the assent of the patriarchs of the east, of Alexandria, Antioch, and the holy city, or of their priests and bishops… Nor did ‘their voice’, like that of the Apostles, ‘go out into the whole earth or their words to the ends of the world’, as did those of the six holy ecumenical councils.”

Let us first address the quote they use to support their position. It was written by a Roman delegate, and Rome blatantly saw herself as supreme by the 7th century. It designates the Pope’s active cooperation (synergeia) in a council as “the rule” (nomos; law) and then discusses the assent (συμφρονοῦντας; adherence) of everyone else as a separate clause. That is, this quote implies the very opposite of their argument: that Rome’s participation is legally, even foundationally necessary to bind the Church, while the assent of the broader Church is demonstrative of ecumenism. Contemporary (805) Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople likewise argued the invalidity of Hieria by saying: “Without [the Romans] no dogma can receive definitive approbation . . . for they preside over the episcopal office and they have received this dignity from [Peter and Paul]. Then follows the note that the other patriarchal thrones also participated.”

So, first, we have demonstrated that the testimony used to support the Pentarchy principle actually contradicts it. Second, return to the previous section on moral necessity. If the argument is that God established the Pentarchy to create an epistemic ground for doctrine, then the fact that the Patriarchates are all in schism today would indicate God failed to safeguard the moral certitude He intended to provide, and this is absurd. Third, there is no scriptural support for such a thing, and the complete Pentarchy didn’t even exist until Chalcedon (451), the fourth ecumenical council. Fourth, Ephesus was ratified despite condemning Nestorius and John of Antioch, two of the four Patriarchs; Chalcedon was ratified despite condemning Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria; Constantinople III was ratified despite condemning Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch. I could continue, but I consider the point proven.

Scriptural Support

Papal supremacy and infallibility took centuries to be fully clarified and dogmatized. But this is no different than many other core doctrines, including Christ’s divinity! As such, its status as a relatively recent formal definition is not grounds to reject it. Since we have shown that reason and history testify to it, we now must show that revelation testifies to it. And indeed, scripture wholeheartedly does. I must emphasize that the following passages don’t actually need to convince you of Papal infallibility per se. If they only convince you that Peter is the visible sign of the true Church, that alone is enough to do the “algebra problem” to get to Papal infallibility anyway.

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 wasn’t the successor to the High Priest. Peter was. In other words: Peter’s office has an authority and character unique and superior to those of the other Apostles.

The Great(er) Commission

Each of the Synoptic Gospels end with the Great Commission. But John’s Great Commission text is in chapter 20, the penultimate chapter. Instead of following the other Gospels, John concludes his Gospel with the following commission:

“When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. And He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. And He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

This is the writing of the last living Apostle to an audience in Asia Minor. Peter was long dead, and the Church was already on her fourth Pope. There is simply no reasonable explanation for this story’s presence aside from communicating the singular importance of Peter’s office. This is especially the case coming off the heels of the blatant High Priest typology in chapter 20.

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).

Other Scriptural Evidence

Whenever God directly gives a name to a Biblical character, it is because they are receiving a special commission. In the Old Testament, this list includes Adam, Abraham and Sarah, and Israel. All the names God gives pertain to the mission He is giving. Adam’s name means “man.” “Abraham,” means “father of a multitude” and “Sarah” means “mother of nations.” “Israel” means “having power with God.” 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. God clearly establishes Peter as the rock of the earthly Church.

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). When Christians depend on Peter’s infallibility, they truly depend on Christ.

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. Again, reliance on the Papacy is reliance on the infallibility of Christ Himself.

Counterclaims

Orthodox are quick to point out a handful of examples which challenge Papal supremacy, but fall apart upon inspection.

First, they point out that St. James oversaw the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, not Peter. This is an ironic argument, considering St. John Chrysostom, the Great Hierarch of the East himself, had this to say about the Council: “If any should say, ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that [Christ] appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.” A cursory reading of the passage confirms St. Chrysostom’s interpretation – after all, Peter’s declaration is still in force today, while James’ suggested additions to it were immediately completely ignored (except Paul explicitly teaching the opposite in 1 Corinthians 8), proving Peter’s authority more forcefully than if he had presided over the Council himself.

Second, they argue that Christ giving Peter the keys doesn’t signify a special role. They may point out that Christ uses the phrase “binding and loosing” to describe all the Apostles’ unquestionable authority to excommunicate two chapters later (Matt. 18:15-20). But if Peter weren’t unique, why would Matthew make these separate stories? Why tell the story about Peter at all? They may point out that the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) defines that Christ gave the keys to all the Apostles and their successors. But again, were they not given 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.”

Third, 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 could 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 such power wasn’t actually exercised. Further, he never ratified that the council’s declaration was dogmatic, which, as we discussed in the Pentarchy subsection, is necessary for universal conciliar binding; so the declaration is null. Further, the controversy did not result in heretical declarations from Rome or lasting schism; it was resolved rather quickly, and there hasn’t been an antipope in 600 years. Though it had no lasting impact, some argue the mere fact of multiple claimants somehow contradicts Papal supremacy. But many men claimed Messiahship; is Christ any less the Christ?

Fourth, the “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.

Fifth, 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” clearly 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 that one of us is a robot. His immediate successor recognized this, and it had nothing to do with his condemnation for failure to stifle the monothelites.

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. Cyril 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. Rome’s purity is miraculous.

But is this just special pleading? After all, if the Pope essentially chooses what is and isn’t heresy, isn’t it “cheating” to parade the fact that the Pope was never an heretic? This retort ignores the fact that there have been many Popes. Imagine how many opportunities there were for one Pope to formally condemn a truth or formally declare a heresy and for another to come along and reverse it later! Remember that Papal infallibility was not a defined dogma until recently; they weren’t keeping up appearances at all costs. Any Pope could’ve done this at any time, for millennia. This happening once is all it would take to disprove Papal infallibility. This has happened in every other Patriarchal seat, but never the seat of Rome.

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 the Pope, the universal primate, is the only fitting candidate. This leaves the Orthodox without any objective way to differentiate themselves from each other. Further, it leaves them tacitly accusing God of failing to establish a truly visible, differentiable Church.

Because the Pope is the principle of unity, 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. The thematic development and conclusion to John’s Gospel make no sense unless Peter is the successor to the High Priest. 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. There are several other typological examples pointing to Peter as the successor to the High Priest. Further, without his headship, all doctrinal epistemology ends in circularity or absurdity.

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 absurd and impious.