The point Fr. Rose made about infallibility (of either the Protestant or Catholic kind) as a replacement for the Church itself is really interesting. It’s almost as if our need for certainty increases as our dependence on the Church as a divine-human organism decreases. It’s as if we can sense the loss of something, so we cling to whatever Grand Inquisitor we can find.
Of historical note, my understanding is that St. John Chrysostom was aligned with the Meletians for much of his life. He was ordained as a deacon by Meletius himself when Meletius was already out of communion with Rome. St. John was then ordained as a priest by Flavian, Meletius' successor, who was at the time also out of communion with Rome. St. John himself was then instrumental in reconciling the parties later, but he spent much of his ecclesiastical life in communion with the Meletian faction rather than Rome. I believe Flavian is also now recognized as a saint in the RCC.
From the RCC perspective, the Bishop of Rome can never be schismatic, even if (like Honorius) he teaches something heretical. In other words, one would have a moral obligation to remain in communion with a heretic Pope rather than side with any group of bishops professing orthodoxy in opposition. I think this perspective only makes sense if you embrace a robust idea of indefectibility, even though there has been a broad retreat over the past half century among most Catholics from that position. Indeed, it is commonly accepted now that Honorius did teach error condemned by a council and I think we all know plenty of Catholics who think Pope Francis is a heretic. But if the Pope is only protected from error under unusually precise circumstances (1% of the time), I think you lose the underlying argument in favor of his central importance.
As you point out, the RCC position is motivated largely by a desire for certainty. But as Fr. Hopko was fond of saying, an honest mess is always better than false clarity.
Phenomenal comment. Thank you, Thomas. Not to pile on our Catholic friends but I don't think the papacy offers even a false clarity anymore. There's no illusion of unity or certainty in Rome anymore. So, this negates Vatican I on its face. If you say that your clothes are fireproof, and they catch fire, then... they're not.
To Fr. Hopko's point, this is what I was trying to say with the whole "Early Church Problems" thing. The presence of confusion in the Orthodox Church doesn't falsify our ecclesiology. But if the Pope fails to give clarity, it falsifies Catholic ecclesiology. And if he's the one sowing confusion...
Love the Hopko quote. Another way I have thought it about it is with reference to the Church as the "Mystical Body of Christ", i.e. the church is a person. And a person is never something that can be analyzed and neatly described in a way that exhausts and comprehends all possibilities, or does away with all nuance, complexity and even mystery. Orthodoxy is content with the mystery. Catholicism tries to dissect and catalogue the living body, and in doing so, kills it.
In haste, as I am about to leave on a trip, I think what you are forgetting here is the history of the first millennium when there were many notable cases in which Roman Pontiffs were consulted as final authorities or intervened decisively to solve a difficulty.
Christ in the Holy Eucharist is blazingly glorious - but also conveniently silent. That is, he does not directly answer our questions about the indissolubility of marriage (in difficult cases) or in vitro fertilization or the intrinsic evil of homosexual relations. Yes, of course one can find relevant passages in Scripture and the Fathers, but if they were perfectly obvious to everyone, we wouldn't have a thousand Protestant denominations, some liberal Catholics, and some progressive Orthodox disagreeing over them. If there is not a court of final appeal, hard cases like this—which can mean the difference between eternal life and everlasting death—have no real solution.
Moreover, there is the principle of redundancy and maximalism at work. Christ our Lord gives us many means of knowing and serving Him because He is generous, not because He is desperate. A Protestant could say to an Orthodox: Why do you need the Eucharist, when Christ gives you the Holy Spirit in baptism? What more could you want than the divine Spirit? Well, He wants to give us more, ever more. Someone could say to us: Why do you need Our Lady to intercede for you? Isn't Christ, the one Mediator between God and man, sufficient and more than sufficient? Well, because the Lord loves intercessors and multiplies them for His glory (you know the arguments, I need not rehearse them).
And when the Orthodox says to the Catholic: If we have Christ, or the communion of the Church, or the consensus of the Fathers, we don't need a Pope! The response is: maximalism and redundancy. Sometimes the words of Christ fall on deaf, stubborn, heretical ears. Sometimes the words of the Fathers are not quite as clear or unanimous as we might wish. Sometimes people receive Holy Communion for years and are still deceived about this or that error or vice. It seems like a perfectly sane response to give the Church a visible, audible head who can decisively intervene when intervention is needed.
Now, you know my work well enough to be aware that the foregoing account works for a lot of history but there are times when popes themselves act against their own God-given mission, and that is what we are seeing in spades in recent decades: popes who arrogantly interfere with or cancel out traditions, who teach erroneously (e.g. Francis on communion for adulterers and blessings of homosexuals), and so forth. I admit all this. It's a huge scandal, a massive departure from wisdom. It is not contrary to what the Church recognizes as *possible* for papal deviation, but it remains lamentable and a true stumbling block to any reconciliation (how could it not?).
So nothing I have said above should taken as "triumphalistic." Catholics today should be on their knees in sackcloth and ashes, begging to be delivered from a "style" of papacy that is corrupt and corrosive. But by the same token, we won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. All the principles of Catholicism are willed by Christ and cohere in the unity He willed for His Church.
Thank you for your comment, Peter! For a comment written in haste, it had a great deal packed into it. Many excellent points.
I asked why we need the Pope when we have the Eucharist. In your reply, you say: "Christ our Lord gives us many means of knowing and serving Him because He is generous, not because He is desperate." That seems to be the essence of your argument.
And I think that's the question every Catholic must answer, especially when confronted with the choice of Orthodoxy. *Is* the papacy a blessing? Did the it help to prevent the Great Schism, or contribute to it? Did the it help to prevent the Protestant Reformation, or contribute to it? Is it helping to prevent the Modernist crisis, or is it contributing to that crisis?
I'm not asking you to answer the question. It's a big 'un. But I think most thoughtful Catholics are in the same position as John Henry Newman. They may not dissent from the Church's teachings on the papacy, but they wish she would just tone it down. Yet this isn't something we would say about any other blessing from God. You would balk at the idea of "Eucharistic minimalism." And rightly so! But why not balk at the idea of papal minimalism?
Again, I know that's loaded question and it requires a nuanced answer. But it seems clear to me that the papacy tends to divide rather than unite. It has sown more confusion, not clarity. In one era, we're told that the pope is necessary to preserve tradition. In the next, we're told he's necessary to develop doctrine.
Catholics see how St. Leo the Great was celebrated by the Fathers of Chalcedon for preserving the Faith of the Apostles unblemished ("Peter has spoken through Leo") and we're told that, in fact, this is evidence that popes can unilaterally promulgate new dogmas. They never change anything; that's why they're allowed to change everything!
In theory, there are limits to papal power. And yet the Code of Canon Law also states, "The first see is judged by no one" (can. 1404). So, when Rome deposed Bishop Strickland—a successor to the Apostles—for no reason, he was utterly powerless to resist. There was literally no recourse. There's no recourse for anyone. Roma locuta; causa finita est.
I'm not sure how one can defend such a system. More to the point, though, I'm not sure why anyone would want to. I can understand why Catholics defend the papacy out of a sense of duty, but to call it a *blessing*? With all due respect, that seems like a stretch, Peter!
Most trad Catholics I know will, at least in private, admit that the Odox have done a better job overall in preserving the faith and practice of the Church than the RCC. If the Odox have been able to do so without recourse to an absolute, supreme papacy while the RCC has been unable to do so with one ... well, what's the point of it? Ecclesiology must work some other way.
Good point. That's the next question. I came up with something I've called Bellarmine's Dilemma. When I've argued with RC friends about the limits of papal power they'll usually quote Robert Bellarmine's "De Romano Pontifice" (or some version of the argument).
On the one hand, Bellarmine says: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
On the other: "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."
So, a heretical pope indeed lacks authority... but the invalidity of his commands may only be confirmed by a future pope.
This is the usual trad solution to the Francis Question. An alleged Pius XIII will come in and undo everything Francis has done. But what if Pius XIII is succeeded by a Francis II, who re-does everything Pius XIII undid? Then you need a Pius XIV... and a Francis III... and a Pius XV... and a Francis IV...
This is the problem with Bellarmine's view. The pope is infallible unless he's not, and he must be obeyed unless he can't, and every individual Catholic has to parse this correctly or risk eternal damnation. Which is, by mos trads' admission, the exact position they find themselves in now.
There's a certain internal logic to this, but the question is... why on earth would Christ set up His Church this way? The pope becomes... well, exactly what he is: an albatross hanging around the neck of every faithful Catholic. That is Bellarmine's Dilemma.
Going back to a point you made earlier, there is no body or individual competent to make such a determination (other than some hypothetical future pope). But once a heretical pope loses jurisdiction, aren't any subsequent cardinals he names illegitimate and incapable of electing a successor? It all seems to turn towards sedevacantism. From the sede perspective, only an imaginary, hypothetical pope is worthy of such obedience. It's like being trapped in a funhouse of mirrors.
Thank you. I fully understand the force of your arguments. However, the principal difficulty I find is that they can be turned against Christianity as such. If Christ alone is head of the Church, why has he (seemingly) done such an abysmal job of it? Letting by far the larger part of the Church fall away (the Western half)? Letting the See of St. Peter fall into heresy? Letting the Orthodox splinter apart and often bicker or excommunicate one another and with no realistic possibility EVER of an ecumenical council, contrary to the indisputable practice of the early Church? Or let's push this further: if the Eucharist is so sufficient unto itself, why does it not produce saints in all who receive it? Why are there so many jerks among daily communicants? Is universalism so prominent among the Easterners because it's the only way they think they can rescue the universe, last-minute, from being an absolute absurdity?
What I'm driving at here is that the attack you range against the "usefulness" or "uselessness" of the papacy is an attack that can be equally ranged against every aspect of Christianity and even of theism. It's a knife that cuts in many directions.
While I'm not about to echo Tertullian's "Credo quia absurdum," I would say that the difficulties we find at every level, in every nook and cranny of the Faith, in the heart of every member from layman to hierarch, and in notorious historical examples of failure, are not arguments against Catholicism or against Orthodoxy, but simply more demonstrations of man's hopelessness without the Savior, and of His patient mercy in leading us along the mysterious paths of His righteousness.
Nothing you have said seems to me to be a decisive argument against the papacy as its powers are narrowly defined by Vatican I. That the pope should be infallible when he speaks as Vicar of Christ to the universal church on a matter of faith and morals seems to me to be eminently reasonable, and the fact that it is not often seen in history (see John Joy's book "Disputed Questions on Papal Infallibility" for a realistic assessment: several hundred times over the centuries, and certainly more than twice in the past couple of centuries) also stands to reason: most of the time, the "nuclear option" against heresy is not needed.
Your summary "the pope is infallible except when he isn't and he must be obeyed except when he shouldn't" is glibly said but correct. It is obvious that he is normally not infallible, and that his commands are to be obeyed according to the standard rules of morality (i.e., if the pope, whose job it is to defend and hand on tradition, tells you to deep-six it, you don't follow him in that regard). The fact that some modern popes have grossly exaggerated their prerogatives is most unfortunate and introduces a massive confusion where one shouldn't exist. I'll fully admit that, but I don't see how it thwarts the Petrine primacy as such.
Another weighty reply! Thank you Peter. Let me answer your examples one by one, as best I can.
1. “Letting by far the larger part of the Church fall away (the Western half)?” One could likewise ask, How was it possible for the Nestorians to fall away under the papacy? And what about the Oriental Orthodox? And the Eastern Orthodox, for that matter! Some Orthodox have argued—convincingly, I think—that the very existence of these schisms is proof that the ecclesiology of the Early Church was not papal.
Consider also that the Roman Pontiff was the *last* bishop in the West to adopt the filioque in the Creed. Why did the others continue to adopt this practice when it was condemned by Leo III and John VIII, among others? It seems the infallibility and supremacy of the pope was not believed “everywhere, always, and by all”; it wasn’t even believed in the West.
This is what I meant when I said that the problems that Orthodoxy faces today are very much “Early Church problems.” They're problems that arise from the lack of a centralized hierarchy... the same problems we find in the Great Church.
As an aside: why, after the Great Schism, was Rome’s teaching on the papacy not sufficiently defined so as to prevent the Protestant Reformation? If, as Pastor Aeternus claims, the V1-style papacy was “supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture” and “followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,” why was it not codified until the First Vatican Council, when all possible opponents to “papalism” had gone over into schism or apostasy? At that point, the papacy had already failed to do its job, no?
2. “Letting the Orthodox splinter apart and often bicker or excommunicate one another...” Again, bickering and excommunications were not uncommon in the Early Church. I would point once more to the Meletian Schism. I don’t know if you read the second footnote on my post (I usually skip footnotes myself!) but I did my best to relate that event to the current rupture between Constantinople and Moscow.
3. “... and with no realistic possibility EVER of an ecumenical council, contrary to the indisputable practice of the early Church?” We have held synods of authority or “bindingness” equal to the Ecumenical Councils since the Great Schism—for instance, the Palamite Synods. And we could hold more in the future, should the need arise.
It’s worth noting that five centuries pass between Constantinople IV (filioque) and Constantinople V (essences/energies). Given that the Orthodox reject the concept of the “development of doctrine,” I think it makes sense that the need for such synods would decrease over time, no? For us, general councils exist only to refute heresy. And since the Great Schism, heresies which have occasionally arisen (e.g., Bogomilism) have not posed a grave threat to Orthodox unity.
By the same token, I wonder why it is that the number of disputes *proliferates* in the West when (A) papal power expands rapidly, and (B) all but the most loyal bishops go into schism? Orthodoxy becomes *more* unified after the Schism, which could be attributed to political causes; what’s perplexing is that the West becomes *less* unified, which seems unlikely even on a naturalistic level. Again, I just can’t bring myself to see the papacy as a unifying agent in Church history.
4. “Nothing you have said seems to me to be a decisive argument against the papacy as its powers are narrowly defined by Vatican I.” Yet this is begging the question, is it not? The burden of proof lies on the Catholic side, not the Orthodox.
Also, as I said above, Pastor Aeternus claims that papal infallibility and supremacy are clearly taught in both Scripture and Tradition. If this were the case, why was this dogma not defined until the 19th century? If this was indeed believed “everywhere, always, and by all,” defining the dogma in the first millennium would have saved everyone (including the popes!) a great deal of grief. Yet only is the dogma *not* defined: contrary theories of papal authority, such as those of Chalcedon, are ratified.
A glance at the history of actual popes: the pope is infallible…. unless he is a fallible scheming hedonist, in which case he’s not a real pope.Makes the whole thing seem a bit… fallible?
15 years before I went through my Orthodox/ Catholic discernment, 22 year old atheist me visited the Vatican. In the museum, I had an extreme sudden physical reaction that I never forgot. A feeling that the wind had been knocked out of me, that the blood was being drained from my veins. Sinking in my belly, a chill in my bones. It was in one of the galleries where marble sculptures and gilded treasure were packed in like sardines in a tin that were also stacked on top of 10,000 other tins of sardines in the sardine aisle at Costco. They were each individually so beautiful but utterly vulgar when crammed in together like that.
Pope Sergius III (one of the worst) wanted to allow four divorces. Thankfully, the Patriarch of Constantinople didn't think he was infallible and opposed him. The traditional limit of three was upheld. Now Romans say we're too liberal! Very mysterious. We should all know more of this history.
Thank you for your comment. The Orthodox are too liberal with divorce, yes. And Catholics are too liberal with "annulments." This issue brings shame to both our houses, tbh. It's like a game of soccer where both teams only score against themselves!
There is, in theory, a difference. In reality, a serial adulterer like Newt Gingrich can be granted, not one, but two annulments. This is why Pope Francis has said that most marriages today are invalid. Very few couples trulyu understand what they must agree to do—and agree NOT to do—before they are married in the Catholic Church. The criteria for annulment are also purely subjective. So, whether you call it "divorce" or "annulment," it's much easier to dissolve a marriage in the Catholic Church than it is in the Orthodox Church.
Last thing I’ll add. My very Catholic family on both sides took the whole marriage as a binding forever contract thing VERY seriously. So that was my model of marriage. It’s permanent! Ok. But also YIKES. There was so much unhappiness and animosity in so many instances it sure made the grass on the secular postmodernist feminist side look really, really green.
Never divorced but also never married, but I did the whole “it’s just a piece of paper” let’s just cohabitate thing, multiple, multiple times. I now think it was all very unwise. Single now. Really came around to the whole respect for marriage and desire for a husband and kids thing just as I am aging out of that game. Pray for me.
It is funny to me that this lack of a piece of paper due to my history of nihilistic cynical malaise and open contempt for the institution of marriage leaves me “technically” in excellent standing to be married in either church in a silk dress white as snow. Lord have mercy on us all.
Your presentation of Acts 15 appears disingenuous. You say that James presided over the Council of Jerusalem and that there is no indication that Peter held any special authority. And yet, St. Peter speaks first (after much disputing) Acts 15:7, and St. James begins by referring to what “Simon” has just stated and builds upon it. Now this is not incontrovertible evidence that Peter presided over the Council of Jerusalem in the manner that Popes preside over councils nowadays, but neither does Acts 15 provide incontrovertible evidence that St. Peter did not hold a special place. Similarly, in Galatians, St. Paul speaks of rebuking Cephas in particular. Again, this could have been either because St. Peter was the only one who needed rebuking for dissimulation, but it could also have been because he was not only wrong but had a special authority and so his dissimulation was of greater significance. This does not invalidate your argument as a whole, but your presentation of Acts 15 does weaken it by presenting a valid but complex interpretation of scripture as the clear and obvious reading. May God bless you and your family, and I am guiltily grateful that you have more time to write.
You say, "neither does Acts 15 provide incontrovertible evidence that St. Peter did not hold a special place." This is a fallacy, an argument from silence. In fact—and with all due respect—your whole comment is an argument from silence. You assume that Vatican I is true and have concluded that there is insufficient evidence from Scripture to disprove Vatican I.
First of all, that's not true. Again, under the Roman system, it's impossible to imagine another patriarch (A) presiding at a council or (B) handing down the final judgment. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the burden of proof is on the Catholic side.
Thank you, Michael. I do not think anyone can make a fallacious argument without making an argument. My intent was not to argue against your article, but to highlight a rhetorical weak point. You ask a rhetorical question, “why don’t Catholics use Acts 15 to defend papal authority?” and you answer that it is because St. James presided over the Council of Jerusalem and not St. Peter. I was so struck by that claim that I went and checked to be sure. As a friend, I merely want to advise you against a misrepresentation of scripture. Your argument does not need it, cast it out.
Thank you, Clarke! But it's not a misrepresentation. James ends the proceedings with the words: "Therefore I judge..." Obviously, he isn't claiming infallible authority for himself. He's explaining the consensus which the Apostles had reached. This pattern is followed by subsequent Ecumenical Councils, all of which were led by a presiding bishop—and the presiding bishop was never the pope. Likewise, when the decision is disseminated by an epistle, the Apostles write: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us..." The decision was made by the Holy Spirit via the Council. This is the Orthodox understanding of conciliar authority.
It is not a misrepresentation inasmuch as it is a valid interpretation of the text. I think your reading of Acts 15 is reasonable. But I think it is a misrepresentation to present the text itself as clearly stating that St. James and not St. Peter is presiding over the Council of Jerusalem. There is dispute until St. Peter stands up and speaks. After he speaks they hold their peace. Is this papal authority? Not necessarily, and definitely not in the sense of a formal role with veto privileges. Is this evidence that Peter has no special authority? Maybe, but it requires some argument, such as you have given. Is St. James speaking as presider over the Council or as the head of the pro circumcision faction? If I were to try to argue the latter I would point out that St. James’s says “Simon hath related… and this agrees with the words of the prophets…. therefore I judge…” which seems to me to be what you would say as the head of a faction which is now in agreement with the whole. You make the argument that he does this as the presider over the Council because this is fits with the pattern of subsequent Council’s, well and good. But while that is a reasonable reading, it is not the only reasonable reading of the text.
That is fair. I've never heard it argued that James was NOT the presiding bishop at Jerusalem. Again, that fact would not in itself make much difference since popes didn't preside at any of the seven Ecumenical Councils. But I see why you're offering the contention.
I would like to see a Catholic source disputing James's presidency before offering a clarification. Not saying you have to find one! Just that I'm not willing to concede this point without evidence to the contrary.
Agreed. I would like to have such a source before coming to that conclusion as well. I think the tricky bit is what to make of his nod to St. Peter. Is this a testament to Simon’s authority or merely to his having made a good point?
There is no salvation of any kind in Rome. The Eucharist has never been generative in view of being born again from above. Rome’s and indeed all orthodox Eucharistic practice is fraud. The basis for the Eucharist is Transubstantiation. And that is magik. It does however keep the faithful coming back mass after mass year after year decade after decade to secure one’s eternally doubted salvation. What a scam. But that’s what happens when a religious movement is rooted in Egyptian mythology. All subsequent ritual becomes man made and endlessly additive. Until today every evil known to man can hide under the robes of the men who officiate the fraud. Sad.
I think the Papacy has become an overly theologized argument. No global organization survives without a final arbiter. Actually, no organization does. Someone is always in charge. My kids’ elementary school can't even get along without the principal. It's the practicality of the Papacy that has given the Church its staying power, universality, and general consensus of doctrine. It just is.
I think I addressed this when I point out that the popes did not preside at ecumenical councils. Presidency was assumed by different bishops at different councils but the popes never presided.
Actually I was just reading the acts of Nicaea II and at one point Pope Hadrian says: "Since this has come to pass in the days of their reign, God has magnified their pious rule above all former reigns. And this suggestion which has been read he sent to our most pious kings together with a letter to your holiness and with his vicars who are here present and presiding."
The Pope refers to the Council Fathers as the Emperor's vicars. Not much room here for a Vatican I-style interpretation of the papacy!
What about when it is framed in a less juridical way, like in Bp Barron’s conversation with Jonathan Pageau: the importance of ‘one’ to unify the ‘many’…? I suppose you'd say that that 'one' is Christ himself, rather than a mere man? Is there an advantage though to having a mere man performing the role? After all, we could dispense with clergy altogether on the ground that "Christ will preside"...
Thanks for the comment Austin! We are fine with the existence of a “first among equals” for ease of administration. That’s why, after the Great Schism, the Patriarch of Constantinople assumed that role, which (from the Orthodox perspective) was vacated by the Pope of Rome. But there’s a difference between “useful” and “necessary.” The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Pope’s primacy is merely useful. It says that the Pope is “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” That, for us. Is a bridge too far.
I guess my question was more, "oughtn't there to be a pope, in theory; doesn't it seem like the right way to do things? (given the necessity of unifying many bishops)". I don't get the sense many people really believe the ultra-papacy of Gregory VII was present in the first millennium.
It should be the pope, yes. The Orthodox have been pretty consistent in saying that if Rome rolled back its “developments” on things like the creed, the papacy, etc., the pope would return to his old position of first among equals.
The point Fr. Rose made about infallibility (of either the Protestant or Catholic kind) as a replacement for the Church itself is really interesting. It’s almost as if our need for certainty increases as our dependence on the Church as a divine-human organism decreases. It’s as if we can sense the loss of something, so we cling to whatever Grand Inquisitor we can find.
Great observation. Thanks, Adam.
This is excellent. Thank you, Michael.
Of historical note, my understanding is that St. John Chrysostom was aligned with the Meletians for much of his life. He was ordained as a deacon by Meletius himself when Meletius was already out of communion with Rome. St. John was then ordained as a priest by Flavian, Meletius' successor, who was at the time also out of communion with Rome. St. John himself was then instrumental in reconciling the parties later, but he spent much of his ecclesiastical life in communion with the Meletian faction rather than Rome. I believe Flavian is also now recognized as a saint in the RCC.
From the RCC perspective, the Bishop of Rome can never be schismatic, even if (like Honorius) he teaches something heretical. In other words, one would have a moral obligation to remain in communion with a heretic Pope rather than side with any group of bishops professing orthodoxy in opposition. I think this perspective only makes sense if you embrace a robust idea of indefectibility, even though there has been a broad retreat over the past half century among most Catholics from that position. Indeed, it is commonly accepted now that Honorius did teach error condemned by a council and I think we all know plenty of Catholics who think Pope Francis is a heretic. But if the Pope is only protected from error under unusually precise circumstances (1% of the time), I think you lose the underlying argument in favor of his central importance.
As you point out, the RCC position is motivated largely by a desire for certainty. But as Fr. Hopko was fond of saying, an honest mess is always better than false clarity.
Phenomenal comment. Thank you, Thomas. Not to pile on our Catholic friends but I don't think the papacy offers even a false clarity anymore. There's no illusion of unity or certainty in Rome anymore. So, this negates Vatican I on its face. If you say that your clothes are fireproof, and they catch fire, then... they're not.
To Fr. Hopko's point, this is what I was trying to say with the whole "Early Church Problems" thing. The presence of confusion in the Orthodox Church doesn't falsify our ecclesiology. But if the Pope fails to give clarity, it falsifies Catholic ecclesiology. And if he's the one sowing confusion...
Love the Hopko quote. Another way I have thought it about it is with reference to the Church as the "Mystical Body of Christ", i.e. the church is a person. And a person is never something that can be analyzed and neatly described in a way that exhausts and comprehends all possibilities, or does away with all nuance, complexity and even mystery. Orthodoxy is content with the mystery. Catholicism tries to dissect and catalogue the living body, and in doing so, kills it.
Thank you for passing on Fr Thomas’s wise word!
Thank you! As an Orthodox Catechumen from Roman rite Catholicism, this articulates so much I've vaguely thought about.
I'm very glad to hear it! Thank you, EBG. Welcome home.
In haste, as I am about to leave on a trip, I think what you are forgetting here is the history of the first millennium when there were many notable cases in which Roman Pontiffs were consulted as final authorities or intervened decisively to solve a difficulty.
Christ in the Holy Eucharist is blazingly glorious - but also conveniently silent. That is, he does not directly answer our questions about the indissolubility of marriage (in difficult cases) or in vitro fertilization or the intrinsic evil of homosexual relations. Yes, of course one can find relevant passages in Scripture and the Fathers, but if they were perfectly obvious to everyone, we wouldn't have a thousand Protestant denominations, some liberal Catholics, and some progressive Orthodox disagreeing over them. If there is not a court of final appeal, hard cases like this—which can mean the difference between eternal life and everlasting death—have no real solution.
Moreover, there is the principle of redundancy and maximalism at work. Christ our Lord gives us many means of knowing and serving Him because He is generous, not because He is desperate. A Protestant could say to an Orthodox: Why do you need the Eucharist, when Christ gives you the Holy Spirit in baptism? What more could you want than the divine Spirit? Well, He wants to give us more, ever more. Someone could say to us: Why do you need Our Lady to intercede for you? Isn't Christ, the one Mediator between God and man, sufficient and more than sufficient? Well, because the Lord loves intercessors and multiplies them for His glory (you know the arguments, I need not rehearse them).
And when the Orthodox says to the Catholic: If we have Christ, or the communion of the Church, or the consensus of the Fathers, we don't need a Pope! The response is: maximalism and redundancy. Sometimes the words of Christ fall on deaf, stubborn, heretical ears. Sometimes the words of the Fathers are not quite as clear or unanimous as we might wish. Sometimes people receive Holy Communion for years and are still deceived about this or that error or vice. It seems like a perfectly sane response to give the Church a visible, audible head who can decisively intervene when intervention is needed.
Now, you know my work well enough to be aware that the foregoing account works for a lot of history but there are times when popes themselves act against their own God-given mission, and that is what we are seeing in spades in recent decades: popes who arrogantly interfere with or cancel out traditions, who teach erroneously (e.g. Francis on communion for adulterers and blessings of homosexuals), and so forth. I admit all this. It's a huge scandal, a massive departure from wisdom. It is not contrary to what the Church recognizes as *possible* for papal deviation, but it remains lamentable and a true stumbling block to any reconciliation (how could it not?).
So nothing I have said above should taken as "triumphalistic." Catholics today should be on their knees in sackcloth and ashes, begging to be delivered from a "style" of papacy that is corrupt and corrosive. But by the same token, we won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. All the principles of Catholicism are willed by Christ and cohere in the unity He willed for His Church.
Thank you for your comment, Peter! For a comment written in haste, it had a great deal packed into it. Many excellent points.
I asked why we need the Pope when we have the Eucharist. In your reply, you say: "Christ our Lord gives us many means of knowing and serving Him because He is generous, not because He is desperate." That seems to be the essence of your argument.
And I think that's the question every Catholic must answer, especially when confronted with the choice of Orthodoxy. *Is* the papacy a blessing? Did the it help to prevent the Great Schism, or contribute to it? Did the it help to prevent the Protestant Reformation, or contribute to it? Is it helping to prevent the Modernist crisis, or is it contributing to that crisis?
I'm not asking you to answer the question. It's a big 'un. But I think most thoughtful Catholics are in the same position as John Henry Newman. They may not dissent from the Church's teachings on the papacy, but they wish she would just tone it down. Yet this isn't something we would say about any other blessing from God. You would balk at the idea of "Eucharistic minimalism." And rightly so! But why not balk at the idea of papal minimalism?
Again, I know that's loaded question and it requires a nuanced answer. But it seems clear to me that the papacy tends to divide rather than unite. It has sown more confusion, not clarity. In one era, we're told that the pope is necessary to preserve tradition. In the next, we're told he's necessary to develop doctrine.
Catholics see how St. Leo the Great was celebrated by the Fathers of Chalcedon for preserving the Faith of the Apostles unblemished ("Peter has spoken through Leo") and we're told that, in fact, this is evidence that popes can unilaterally promulgate new dogmas. They never change anything; that's why they're allowed to change everything!
In theory, there are limits to papal power. And yet the Code of Canon Law also states, "The first see is judged by no one" (can. 1404). So, when Rome deposed Bishop Strickland—a successor to the Apostles—for no reason, he was utterly powerless to resist. There was literally no recourse. There's no recourse for anyone. Roma locuta; causa finita est.
I'm not sure how one can defend such a system. More to the point, though, I'm not sure why anyone would want to. I can understand why Catholics defend the papacy out of a sense of duty, but to call it a *blessing*? With all due respect, that seems like a stretch, Peter!
Most trad Catholics I know will, at least in private, admit that the Odox have done a better job overall in preserving the faith and practice of the Church than the RCC. If the Odox have been able to do so without recourse to an absolute, supreme papacy while the RCC has been unable to do so with one ... well, what's the point of it? Ecclesiology must work some other way.
Good point. That's the next question. I came up with something I've called Bellarmine's Dilemma. When I've argued with RC friends about the limits of papal power they'll usually quote Robert Bellarmine's "De Romano Pontifice" (or some version of the argument).
On the one hand, Bellarmine says: "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."
On the other: "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior."
So, a heretical pope indeed lacks authority... but the invalidity of his commands may only be confirmed by a future pope.
This is the usual trad solution to the Francis Question. An alleged Pius XIII will come in and undo everything Francis has done. But what if Pius XIII is succeeded by a Francis II, who re-does everything Pius XIII undid? Then you need a Pius XIV... and a Francis III... and a Pius XV... and a Francis IV...
This is the problem with Bellarmine's view. The pope is infallible unless he's not, and he must be obeyed unless he can't, and every individual Catholic has to parse this correctly or risk eternal damnation. Which is, by mos trads' admission, the exact position they find themselves in now.
There's a certain internal logic to this, but the question is... why on earth would Christ set up His Church this way? The pope becomes... well, exactly what he is: an albatross hanging around the neck of every faithful Catholic. That is Bellarmine's Dilemma.
Going back to a point you made earlier, there is no body or individual competent to make such a determination (other than some hypothetical future pope). But once a heretical pope loses jurisdiction, aren't any subsequent cardinals he names illegitimate and incapable of electing a successor? It all seems to turn towards sedevacantism. From the sede perspective, only an imaginary, hypothetical pope is worthy of such obedience. It's like being trapped in a funhouse of mirrors.
Absolutely. This is why sedes love "De Romano Pontifice"!
Michael,
Thank you. I fully understand the force of your arguments. However, the principal difficulty I find is that they can be turned against Christianity as such. If Christ alone is head of the Church, why has he (seemingly) done such an abysmal job of it? Letting by far the larger part of the Church fall away (the Western half)? Letting the See of St. Peter fall into heresy? Letting the Orthodox splinter apart and often bicker or excommunicate one another and with no realistic possibility EVER of an ecumenical council, contrary to the indisputable practice of the early Church? Or let's push this further: if the Eucharist is so sufficient unto itself, why does it not produce saints in all who receive it? Why are there so many jerks among daily communicants? Is universalism so prominent among the Easterners because it's the only way they think they can rescue the universe, last-minute, from being an absolute absurdity?
What I'm driving at here is that the attack you range against the "usefulness" or "uselessness" of the papacy is an attack that can be equally ranged against every aspect of Christianity and even of theism. It's a knife that cuts in many directions.
While I'm not about to echo Tertullian's "Credo quia absurdum," I would say that the difficulties we find at every level, in every nook and cranny of the Faith, in the heart of every member from layman to hierarch, and in notorious historical examples of failure, are not arguments against Catholicism or against Orthodoxy, but simply more demonstrations of man's hopelessness without the Savior, and of His patient mercy in leading us along the mysterious paths of His righteousness.
Nothing you have said seems to me to be a decisive argument against the papacy as its powers are narrowly defined by Vatican I. That the pope should be infallible when he speaks as Vicar of Christ to the universal church on a matter of faith and morals seems to me to be eminently reasonable, and the fact that it is not often seen in history (see John Joy's book "Disputed Questions on Papal Infallibility" for a realistic assessment: several hundred times over the centuries, and certainly more than twice in the past couple of centuries) also stands to reason: most of the time, the "nuclear option" against heresy is not needed.
Your summary "the pope is infallible except when he isn't and he must be obeyed except when he shouldn't" is glibly said but correct. It is obvious that he is normally not infallible, and that his commands are to be obeyed according to the standard rules of morality (i.e., if the pope, whose job it is to defend and hand on tradition, tells you to deep-six it, you don't follow him in that regard). The fact that some modern popes have grossly exaggerated their prerogatives is most unfortunate and introduces a massive confusion where one shouldn't exist. I'll fully admit that, but I don't see how it thwarts the Petrine primacy as such.
Another weighty reply! Thank you Peter. Let me answer your examples one by one, as best I can.
1. “Letting by far the larger part of the Church fall away (the Western half)?” One could likewise ask, How was it possible for the Nestorians to fall away under the papacy? And what about the Oriental Orthodox? And the Eastern Orthodox, for that matter! Some Orthodox have argued—convincingly, I think—that the very existence of these schisms is proof that the ecclesiology of the Early Church was not papal.
Consider also that the Roman Pontiff was the *last* bishop in the West to adopt the filioque in the Creed. Why did the others continue to adopt this practice when it was condemned by Leo III and John VIII, among others? It seems the infallibility and supremacy of the pope was not believed “everywhere, always, and by all”; it wasn’t even believed in the West.
This is what I meant when I said that the problems that Orthodoxy faces today are very much “Early Church problems.” They're problems that arise from the lack of a centralized hierarchy... the same problems we find in the Great Church.
As an aside: why, after the Great Schism, was Rome’s teaching on the papacy not sufficiently defined so as to prevent the Protestant Reformation? If, as Pastor Aeternus claims, the V1-style papacy was “supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture” and “followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,” why was it not codified until the First Vatican Council, when all possible opponents to “papalism” had gone over into schism or apostasy? At that point, the papacy had already failed to do its job, no?
2. “Letting the Orthodox splinter apart and often bicker or excommunicate one another...” Again, bickering and excommunications were not uncommon in the Early Church. I would point once more to the Meletian Schism. I don’t know if you read the second footnote on my post (I usually skip footnotes myself!) but I did my best to relate that event to the current rupture between Constantinople and Moscow.
3. “... and with no realistic possibility EVER of an ecumenical council, contrary to the indisputable practice of the early Church?” We have held synods of authority or “bindingness” equal to the Ecumenical Councils since the Great Schism—for instance, the Palamite Synods. And we could hold more in the future, should the need arise.
It’s worth noting that five centuries pass between Constantinople IV (filioque) and Constantinople V (essences/energies). Given that the Orthodox reject the concept of the “development of doctrine,” I think it makes sense that the need for such synods would decrease over time, no? For us, general councils exist only to refute heresy. And since the Great Schism, heresies which have occasionally arisen (e.g., Bogomilism) have not posed a grave threat to Orthodox unity.
By the same token, I wonder why it is that the number of disputes *proliferates* in the West when (A) papal power expands rapidly, and (B) all but the most loyal bishops go into schism? Orthodoxy becomes *more* unified after the Schism, which could be attributed to political causes; what’s perplexing is that the West becomes *less* unified, which seems unlikely even on a naturalistic level. Again, I just can’t bring myself to see the papacy as a unifying agent in Church history.
4. “Nothing you have said seems to me to be a decisive argument against the papacy as its powers are narrowly defined by Vatican I.” Yet this is begging the question, is it not? The burden of proof lies on the Catholic side, not the Orthodox.
Also, as I said above, Pastor Aeternus claims that papal infallibility and supremacy are clearly taught in both Scripture and Tradition. If this were the case, why was this dogma not defined until the 19th century? If this was indeed believed “everywhere, always, and by all,” defining the dogma in the first millennium would have saved everyone (including the popes!) a great deal of grief. Yet only is the dogma *not* defined: contrary theories of papal authority, such as those of Chalcedon, are ratified.
God be with you! Happy Lent.
Amazing piece! Thank you. As a convert from Catholicism, this is new territory for me. This was a clear explanation.
Glory to God! Thank you, brother Christopher.
A convincing argument. Christ is and has from the beginning been the head of the Church.
Thank you brother.
A glance at the history of actual popes: the pope is infallible…. unless he is a fallible scheming hedonist, in which case he’s not a real pope.Makes the whole thing seem a bit… fallible?
15 years before I went through my Orthodox/ Catholic discernment, 22 year old atheist me visited the Vatican. In the museum, I had an extreme sudden physical reaction that I never forgot. A feeling that the wind had been knocked out of me, that the blood was being drained from my veins. Sinking in my belly, a chill in my bones. It was in one of the galleries where marble sculptures and gilded treasure were packed in like sardines in a tin that were also stacked on top of 10,000 other tins of sardines in the sardine aisle at Costco. They were each individually so beautiful but utterly vulgar when crammed in together like that.
Pope Sergius III (one of the worst) wanted to allow four divorces. Thankfully, the Patriarch of Constantinople didn't think he was infallible and opposed him. The traditional limit of three was upheld. Now Romans say we're too liberal! Very mysterious. We should all know more of this history.
“One of” the worst!
Thank you for your comment. The Orthodox are too liberal with divorce, yes. And Catholics are too liberal with "annulments." This issue brings shame to both our houses, tbh. It's like a game of soccer where both teams only score against themselves!
There is, in theory, a difference. In reality, a serial adulterer like Newt Gingrich can be granted, not one, but two annulments. This is why Pope Francis has said that most marriages today are invalid. Very few couples trulyu understand what they must agree to do—and agree NOT to do—before they are married in the Catholic Church. The criteria for annulment are also purely subjective. So, whether you call it "divorce" or "annulment," it's much easier to dissolve a marriage in the Catholic Church than it is in the Orthodox Church.
Last thing I’ll add. My very Catholic family on both sides took the whole marriage as a binding forever contract thing VERY seriously. So that was my model of marriage. It’s permanent! Ok. But also YIKES. There was so much unhappiness and animosity in so many instances it sure made the grass on the secular postmodernist feminist side look really, really green.
Never divorced but also never married, but I did the whole “it’s just a piece of paper” let’s just cohabitate thing, multiple, multiple times. I now think it was all very unwise. Single now. Really came around to the whole respect for marriage and desire for a husband and kids thing just as I am aging out of that game. Pray for me.
It is funny to me that this lack of a piece of paper due to my history of nihilistic cynical malaise and open contempt for the institution of marriage leaves me “technically” in excellent standing to be married in either church in a silk dress white as snow. Lord have mercy on us all.
Very helpful discussion. Thank you all!
Your presentation of Acts 15 appears disingenuous. You say that James presided over the Council of Jerusalem and that there is no indication that Peter held any special authority. And yet, St. Peter speaks first (after much disputing) Acts 15:7, and St. James begins by referring to what “Simon” has just stated and builds upon it. Now this is not incontrovertible evidence that Peter presided over the Council of Jerusalem in the manner that Popes preside over councils nowadays, but neither does Acts 15 provide incontrovertible evidence that St. Peter did not hold a special place. Similarly, in Galatians, St. Paul speaks of rebuking Cephas in particular. Again, this could have been either because St. Peter was the only one who needed rebuking for dissimulation, but it could also have been because he was not only wrong but had a special authority and so his dissimulation was of greater significance. This does not invalidate your argument as a whole, but your presentation of Acts 15 does weaken it by presenting a valid but complex interpretation of scripture as the clear and obvious reading. May God bless you and your family, and I am guiltily grateful that you have more time to write.
Thanks for reading, Clarke!
You say, "neither does Acts 15 provide incontrovertible evidence that St. Peter did not hold a special place." This is a fallacy, an argument from silence. In fact—and with all due respect—your whole comment is an argument from silence. You assume that Vatican I is true and have concluded that there is insufficient evidence from Scripture to disprove Vatican I.
First of all, that's not true. Again, under the Roman system, it's impossible to imagine another patriarch (A) presiding at a council or (B) handing down the final judgment. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the burden of proof is on the Catholic side.
Thank you, Michael. I do not think anyone can make a fallacious argument without making an argument. My intent was not to argue against your article, but to highlight a rhetorical weak point. You ask a rhetorical question, “why don’t Catholics use Acts 15 to defend papal authority?” and you answer that it is because St. James presided over the Council of Jerusalem and not St. Peter. I was so struck by that claim that I went and checked to be sure. As a friend, I merely want to advise you against a misrepresentation of scripture. Your argument does not need it, cast it out.
Thank you, Clarke! But it's not a misrepresentation. James ends the proceedings with the words: "Therefore I judge..." Obviously, he isn't claiming infallible authority for himself. He's explaining the consensus which the Apostles had reached. This pattern is followed by subsequent Ecumenical Councils, all of which were led by a presiding bishop—and the presiding bishop was never the pope. Likewise, when the decision is disseminated by an epistle, the Apostles write: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us..." The decision was made by the Holy Spirit via the Council. This is the Orthodox understanding of conciliar authority.
It is not a misrepresentation inasmuch as it is a valid interpretation of the text. I think your reading of Acts 15 is reasonable. But I think it is a misrepresentation to present the text itself as clearly stating that St. James and not St. Peter is presiding over the Council of Jerusalem. There is dispute until St. Peter stands up and speaks. After he speaks they hold their peace. Is this papal authority? Not necessarily, and definitely not in the sense of a formal role with veto privileges. Is this evidence that Peter has no special authority? Maybe, but it requires some argument, such as you have given. Is St. James speaking as presider over the Council or as the head of the pro circumcision faction? If I were to try to argue the latter I would point out that St. James’s says “Simon hath related… and this agrees with the words of the prophets…. therefore I judge…” which seems to me to be what you would say as the head of a faction which is now in agreement with the whole. You make the argument that he does this as the presider over the Council because this is fits with the pattern of subsequent Council’s, well and good. But while that is a reasonable reading, it is not the only reasonable reading of the text.
That is fair. I've never heard it argued that James was NOT the presiding bishop at Jerusalem. Again, that fact would not in itself make much difference since popes didn't preside at any of the seven Ecumenical Councils. But I see why you're offering the contention.
I would like to see a Catholic source disputing James's presidency before offering a clarification. Not saying you have to find one! Just that I'm not willing to concede this point without evidence to the contrary.
Agreed. I would like to have such a source before coming to that conclusion as well. I think the tricky bit is what to make of his nod to St. Peter. Is this a testament to Simon’s authority or merely to his having made a good point?
There is no salvation of any kind in Rome. The Eucharist has never been generative in view of being born again from above. Rome’s and indeed all orthodox Eucharistic practice is fraud. The basis for the Eucharist is Transubstantiation. And that is magik. It does however keep the faithful coming back mass after mass year after year decade after decade to secure one’s eternally doubted salvation. What a scam. But that’s what happens when a religious movement is rooted in Egyptian mythology. All subsequent ritual becomes man made and endlessly additive. Until today every evil known to man can hide under the robes of the men who officiate the fraud. Sad.
I think the Papacy has become an overly theologized argument. No global organization survives without a final arbiter. Actually, no organization does. Someone is always in charge. My kids’ elementary school can't even get along without the principal. It's the practicality of the Papacy that has given the Church its staying power, universality, and general consensus of doctrine. It just is.
Christ is risen!
Such a helpful discussion of these questions- thank you so much! And your flowing prose supports my following of your clear thinking.
Have you seriously checked if some Greek Fathers of the Church accepted the Visible Head of the Church (i.e., the Pope)?
Do you address somewhere the argument he makes in the same video about the 'body' of a synod of bishops needing a 'head' to complete it?
I think I addressed this when I point out that the popes did not preside at ecumenical councils. Presidency was assumed by different bishops at different councils but the popes never presided.
Actually I was just reading the acts of Nicaea II and at one point Pope Hadrian says: "Since this has come to pass in the days of their reign, God has magnified their pious rule above all former reigns. And this suggestion which has been read he sent to our most pious kings together with a letter to your holiness and with his vicars who are here present and presiding."
The Pope refers to the Council Fathers as the Emperor's vicars. Not much room here for a Vatican I-style interpretation of the papacy!
What about when it is framed in a less juridical way, like in Bp Barron’s conversation with Jonathan Pageau: the importance of ‘one’ to unify the ‘many’…? I suppose you'd say that that 'one' is Christ himself, rather than a mere man? Is there an advantage though to having a mere man performing the role? After all, we could dispense with clergy altogether on the ground that "Christ will preside"...
Thanks for the comment Austin! We are fine with the existence of a “first among equals” for ease of administration. That’s why, after the Great Schism, the Patriarch of Constantinople assumed that role, which (from the Orthodox perspective) was vacated by the Pope of Rome. But there’s a difference between “useful” and “necessary.” The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Pope’s primacy is merely useful. It says that the Pope is “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” That, for us. Is a bridge too far.
I guess my question was more, "oughtn't there to be a pope, in theory; doesn't it seem like the right way to do things? (given the necessity of unifying many bishops)". I don't get the sense many people really believe the ultra-papacy of Gregory VII was present in the first millennium.
It should be the pope, yes. The Orthodox have been pretty consistent in saying that if Rome rolled back its “developments” on things like the creed, the papacy, etc., the pope would return to his old position of first among equals.
I guess to be honest I would be happy with a reunion that involved a humbling on both sides, e.g., less power for the pope, updated calendar, etc.
Chiming in way late on this, but excellent article Michael!
Excellent break down of the topic, thanks MWD!
Thank you brother!