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, being the “pillar and foundation of truth” is infallible in defining universally binding doctrines of faith and morals (1 Tim. 3:15). 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?

Christ established a visible body of shepherds through Apostolic succession, the passing on of the Episcopal office by an unbroken chain of consecrations going back to the original twelve. By this, Christ left the Church with a visible sign of His sanction. 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 three major Apostolic communions: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox. Each of these communions consider the others to be in error. Of course, there is only one truth, so only one can be “the pillar of truth.” I will demonstrate that only the Catholic Church has an objective, clear, visible, scriptural, and historical claim to the protection of the Holy Spirit in her promulgation of doctrine.

YouTube video presentation of this argument here.

Signs

Some have fallen into despair trying to discern between Apostolic communions. The differences are so technical, so minute – the Holy Spirit’s procession, the essence-energies distinction, Purgatory, and so on. They find it impossible to assess which Church is the true Church using these means. And that’s a good intuition. It is impossible. Many brilliant men who spent their lives studying the ancient tongues, the theologians and the scriptures came to heretical conclusions. The common man simply stands no chance. But it is precisely because this is impossible that we know God does not expect it. The Good Shepherd has never, would never, and can never ask the sheep for more than they can do. This is why He communicates through signs. He condescends to the flock’s confusion by giving them clear, recognizable signs of His presence – Sinai, Elijah’s offering, Jesus’ miracles, Pentecost, and so on.

Orthodox and Catholics would agree that Apostolic succession is the visible sign by which common men may recognize the Church. However, it cannot be the only visible sign. How do I know this? Because several Apostolic communions are presently in schism. So, if one believed that Apostolicity was the only visible sign of the true Church, then they must believe God intended to provide His true Church visible signification, but failed. This, of course, no Christian can believe. This leaves us with one alternative: some other sign beyond Apostolicity must also be present to signify the true Church. This sign would need to have three characteristics to achieve its purpose. It must be visible, so the common man may recognize it. Exclusive, such that multiple communions cannot reasonably lay claim to it at once. Divinely revealed, so that none can reasonably levy the charge that it was invented by men.

Papal Infallibility

The Catholic Church claims that the Bishop of Rome – the Pope – fulfills these three requirements. The premise is simple: scripture designates Peter as the leader of the Apostles. Rome was his last seat, making the Bishops of Rome his successors. As Peter was the Church’s rightful leader, so too are they. So far, you may be surprised to learn, many Orthodox would largely agree. Orthodox vespers call Peter “leader of the glorious Apostles and rock of faith,” and Pope Leo the Great, “head of the Orthodox Church of Christ.” So all agree that the Papacy is visible, exclusive, and divinely revealed. The question is what exactly was divinely revealed? Catholics consider Peter’s office divinely instituted for the unique role of maintaining unity, necessitating supreme authority and something called “Papal infallibility,” whereas the Orthodox consider Rome’s leadership honorific and fallible.

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 infallible Church is known, then the Pope himself must be infallible when he’s making a binding declaration on her behalf. This is what the Catholic Church infamously declared at the first Vatican Council. When the Pope ratifies or declares a universally binding decree on faith and morals, he is infallible. Why? Because whatever Church he’s in is definitionally the infallible one. In making a binding declaration on her behalf, whatever he’s saying is definitionally true.

This gives the Catholic Church an “epistemic ground,” whereby any man may know his faith is pure merely by ensuring his faith is Rome’s faith, because it is impossible for Rome to err. Again, the Orthodox would disagree, claiming that Rome’s leadership is honorific, and thus it is possible for Rome to err. The untenability of this contention will be shown in three ways. First, that scripture clearly testifies to Peter’s office having a special character. Second, that the early Church, including the East, recognized that this was the case and why it was necessary. Third, that the modern Orthodox, having rejected Peter, consequently accuse God of failing to provide a visible, exclusive, divinely revealed sign that the true Church is the true Church, an immense impiety.

Scriptural Support

Papal supremacy and infallibility took centuries to be fully clarified and officially dogmatized. But this is no different than many other core doctrines, including the Trinity! And like the Trinity, the Papal role and character is revealed in scripture. 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’s role in the Church is more than honorific (a distinct, unique office of leadership), 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 water 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 discourses across chapters 8-13 mirror the Menorah (Ex. 25:31-40). Jesus’ intercessory prayers across the next few chapters, culminating in John 17, reflect the altar where the High Priest burnt incense, symbolically offering the people’s prayers to God ascending as a sweet fragrance (Ex 30:1-10).

The verdict of His trial – “I find no guilt in Him” – proves Him a worthy sacrifice, an unblemished lamb (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 Cherubim overlooking the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. 25:7-20). Of course, Lev. 16 tells us that only the High Priest can enter the Holy of Holies, which the tomb had become. The message is clear: Jesus is the High Priest who, through death, entered the Holy of Holies to atone for the people.

But the story continues. When Mary Magdalene reports the resurrection, John notes that he and Peter ran to the tomb. He ran faster and got there first, but waited for Peter (John 20:8). This mirrors what happened during Jesus’ trial, where Peter could not enter the High Priest’s courtyard until John let him in (John 18:15-16). John likewise could not enter the Holy of Holies until Peter let him in. Peter is John’s High Priest. But isn’t John already a High Priest, being an Apostle? Yes, and that’s what makes this so significant. Israel only required one High Priest because it was only one distinct people – like one diocese or eparchy. But in a newly-born universal Church, there would need to be many Bishoprics, and many High Priests. Peter’s role is to be the High Priests’ High Priest, the supreme religious leader, the source of unity.

The Great(er) Commission

Each of the Synoptic Gospels end with the Great Commission. But John’s Great Commission text is in his penultimate chapter. John instead concludes his Gospel with this commission: “Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him the third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus 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 story of the tomb in chapter 20.

The Rock

The plainest, simplest, and most commonly used argument for the Papacy is Christ’s words to Simon at Caesarea Philippi. Following his confession that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ renames Simon Peter, which means “rock” and says “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). The force of these words is rather intuitive, but we can expound on their power in three ways.

First, whenever God directly names 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 upon which a city was built – names Simon “Peter,” which means “Rock,” and says He will build the Church on rock. God clearly establishes Peter as the rock of the earthly Church.

Second, Matthew’s Gospel, written for a Jewish audience, plainly alludes to the Lord’s words establishing Eliakim as the steward (2 Kings 18:18, 37) to King Hezekiah’s household: “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). Only the king himself exceeded the steward’s authority. Much as Joseph said, “God… has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt,” God says He will make Eliakim “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Genesis 45:8). Matthew teaches that Peter is likewise steward and father of Christ’s household, the Church.

Third, because Matthew separates this story from Christ giving like powers to the other Apostles two chapters later (Matt. 18:15-20). For what purpose would he do this if not to signify Peter’s special role? Indeed, all Apostles have the power to bind and loose, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) even defines that Christ gave the keys to all the Apostles and their successors, but they were nonetheless clearly given through Peter. As the Levite Priests depend on the High Priest, so the Apostles depend on Peter. 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.”

Confirmations

Peter’s unique role receives numerous confirmations. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus says to the Apostles, “Satan has demanded to sift you like wheat,” but then addresses Peter 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). Peter spoke on behalf of the Apostles at Pentecost and before the Sanhedrin, performed the first Apostolic miracles, declared ecclesial judgments which God ratified by striking the subjects dead (Acts 2-5), declared the Church’s mission to the Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18), and made the only novel binding declaration at the Council of Jerusalem despite the fact that James presided, prompting St. John Chrysostom (Hierarch of the East) to say, “[James received] the chair at Jerusalem [because Christ] appointed Peter teacher not of the chair, but of the world.”

Historical Support

Again, although formal definition took a long time, the idea that Christ divinely instituted the Papacy is not new. Optatus (4th c.) 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 (4th c.) 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].” St. Jerome, who translated the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Latin, 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.” St. Ambrose (4th c.) simply said, “where Peter is, there is the Church.”

In the 5th century we begin to see numerous examples of this concept not just being loudly proclaimed, but explicitly taken to the logical conclusion that Rome cannot teach error. Pope Gelasius I gave a particularly thorough explanation: “This is just what the Apostolic See takes great care against – that because its pure roots are in [Peter’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 [Rome] lose [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.”

Following this, we begin to see the broader Church accept the proposition. Pope Hormisdas solved the Acacian schism by getting the East to sign a document which decreed, “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,’ 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 generation of Eastern Prelates who (metaphorically) dug Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen of Alexandria out of their graves to anathematize as heretics accepted and signed Hormisdas’ teaching.

St. Maximus the Confessor, the most-cited author in the Philokalia, the definitive anthology of Eastern Orthodox spiritual and ascetic writings, used this same logic to explain why Rome alone resisted monothelitism: “For ever since the Word of God condescended to us and became man, all the Churches of Christians everywhere have held, and hold the great Church there as their sole basis and foundation, because, according to the very promises of the Lord, the gates of hell have never prevailed over her, but rather she has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession.” He likewise denounced the heretic Pyrrhus for offending Rome, “which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God.”

Pope Agatho wrote 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.”

Many modern Orthodox apologists argue that, despite all this, the East never accepted Rome’s infallibility. They suggest that the East’s frequent praises of Rome as a “bastion of purity” were merely descriptive – a recognition of Rome’s excellent track record, not a recognition that she was incapable of being wrong. I find this objection spurious to say the least, but even if we grant it, it defeats itself. If Papal supremacy and infallibility are in fact damnable heresies, then Rome was resoundingly heretical by the fourth century! Did Sts. Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Maximus flee to a See which had flagrantly betrayed the ecclesiology of the Apostles? Did Sts. Cyril, Basil, Theodoret, Sophronius, John Damascene, Theodore the Studite and many others praise the purity of a plainly heretical See? If they did, then on what basis can their other theological judgments, which form the foundation of Orthodoxy, be trusted?

Conciliar Responses

So, this is the Catholic answer: the Pope is the visible sign of the true Church; given that the true Church is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, whichever Church he’s in is infallible, and consequently, he himself is infallible when he binds the faithful on her behalf. Infallibility does not mean the Pope is a good or even pious 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. While one may have contentions, this is nonetheless a valid, non-circular answer with scriptural and historical precedent. What, then, is the Orthodox answer? By what principle do they justify their communion as the true communion?

The Orthodox will often 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 their Church. Other times they will say it’s because they maintained the ancient faith while Rome strayed. But this is question-begging as well; Rome would say that she has maintained the early faith, which indispensably includes Peter. Many will appeal to “reception theory,” the idea that reception by the whole Church grounds doctrinal truth. But this is circular. 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!

Orthodox who recognize the circularity issues will typically allege the “Pentarchy principle” instead. This is the theory that the consent of all five Patriarchs – as opposed to Rome alone – is what signifies the Spirit’s guidance. Often, they will cite Nicaea II’s explanation as to why the preceding robber council, Hieria, was not ecumenical: “[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 law 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. This document, though accepted by the East, was not written by the East. A Roman delegate wrote it, and Rome obviously saw herself as supreme by the 7th century. It designates the Pope’s active cooperation (synergeia) in a council as “the law” (nomos) and then discusses the harmonious assent of everyone else as a separate clause. That is, this quote implies the very opposite of their argument: that Rome’s participation is irreplaceable, while the broader Church plays a more testimonial role. Contemporary (805) Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople likewise argued the invalidity of Hieria bysaying: “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 points back to Peter. Second, while the Pentarchy’s agreement is a visible sign, it is neither exclusive nor divinely revealed. As to exclusivity, the Pentarchy is in schism today, which means it cannot serve as a sign of the true Church. As to revelation, there is no scriptural support for it, and the complete Pentarchy didn’t even exist until Chalcedon (451). Third, the concept contradicts history. 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. These points should suffice to answer the Pentarchy theory specifically and all other conciliarist theories in principle.

Counterclaims

The Orthodox, heedless of their inability to justify their own system, are nonetheless quick to challenge Papal supremacy and infallibility. The common arguments and their rebuttals are as follows:

First: Pope Vigilius’ reign, which challenges Papal powers variously. The Emperor exiled Vigilius’ predecessor Silverius and installed him in a conspiracy to condemn The Three Chapters. After installation, Vigilius changed his mind and refused. Under immense political pressure, Vigilius offered a manifestly reluctant condemnation; the unsatisfied Emperor declared Vigilius had “excommunicated himself,” got an Ecumenical Council to agree, and exiled him. First, was Vigilius even a valid Pope? Yes; although his installation was invalid, an invalidly installed Pope’s status before God is nonetheless ratified by the Church’s universal and peaceful recognition, which Vigilius attained when Silverius died. Second, does his condemnation refute Papal infallibility or supremacy? No; a secular power bullying the Pope into a revocable decree does not contradict these. What about his excommunication? He was never excommunicated. The Council appeased the Emperor by acquiescing to his declaration, but nonetheless waited until Vigilius died to elect his successor.

Second: Pope Honorius’ alleged heresy. 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 indeed, and a Council later condemned him. But this all means little. First, his letter was private, 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 puppet. His successors recognized this and condemned him for failure to stifle the monothelites, not for being one.

Third: the Haec Sancta. This decree from the Council of Constance attempted to solve the crisis of three Papal claimants by asserting conciliar authority over the Papacy. The prevailing Catholic view simply holds the decree invalid. The Council of Constance was not a singular, continuous event; the first thirteen sessions, which included Haec Sancta, were notoriously unruly and convoked by an antipope. The legitimate Pope, Gregory XII, formally convoked the fourteenth session before freely abdicating. His universally recognized successor, Martin V, only ratified declarations the Council decreed “in a conciliar way,” strategically excluding the pre-Gregorian sessions, and his subsequent Bull Inter Cunctas called Haec Sancta heretical. His successor Eugene IV’s ratification likewise excluded decrees which challenged the “preeminence of the Apostolic See.” Some nonetheless argue the mere fact of multiple claimants disproves the Papacy. But this logic would mean the multiplicity of antichrists disprove the true Christ.

Fourth: Orthodox will cite more obscure alleged examples of heretical Papal teaching, such as the allegation Pope Francis condemned capital punishment as intrinsically evil. These types of arguments are numerous and highly technical, so I will offer this general response: the very fact that one must resort to highly technical arguments to accuse the Popes of heresy is evidence of Rome’s miraculous purity. Every other Patriarchate has been led numerous times by obvious, undeniable heretics. Sergius, the Monothelite heretic who tongue-tied Pope Honorius, 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. One Nestorius or Sergius in Rome is all it would take to disprove Papal infallibility, but no such example exists. What are the odds?

Conclusion

The Orthodox churches claim that there is one true Church, and that Christ protects that true Church from doctrinal error. Since there are three major Apostolic communions which mutually find each other heretical, Apostolic communion cannot be the sole sign of the true Church. A fitting sign, in principle, would have to be visible, exclusive, and divinely revealed. The only extant sign which meets these criteria is the office of the Papacy. The East affirmed this countless times before the schism. Lacking the Papacy, the Orthodox lack any objective means to differentiate themselves from each other. Consequently, it leaves them tacitly accusing God of failing to establish an objectively differentiable Church. As such, the Christian who wishes to call himself pious must affirm the Papacy.