Attempting to demonstrate the error of the Roman papacy is very tricky, for almost every claim against it there are counterclaims upon counterclaims. In these counterclaims one finds quotes from Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, and appeals to Scripture and to logic. One grows weary (and lighter in the wallet) attempting to keep track responsibly, but for an Orthodox Christian the problem is relatively plain to see. Trying to point it out to a Roman Catholic, however, is almost like trying to point out a dolphin jumping out of the water a little ways off shore that, for whatever reason, the other person just never seems to be able to see. There is a paradox, however, which could provide an image of the type of problem that seems to be at work. This paradox is called the Sorites Paradox.
The Sorites Paradox is sometimes also called the Paradox of the Heap, and it refers to how a single stone is not a heap of stones, and how, if one more stone is added, it is still not a heap. Now, if two stones are not a heap, then adding only one more stone will not make it a heap, either. And if that is not a heap, adding still one more stone won’t make it one. Eventually, so the paradox goes, one has an enormous heap of stones, but, due to the one-by-one method of adding, the obvious fact of the heap is denied. Nothing to see here, there is no heap.
Returning to the centuries-long developments of the Roman papacy, I contend that they are a heap of stones. Yet, because each single stone receives its own rationalization and its own justification, the mountain of stones is denied, and so the Roman Catholic will seek in some way to say that nothing has changed regarding the Roman patriarch; it is essentially the same as St. Peter left it... and yet to plain sight the heap created over the centuries is utterly unlike that which came before. In short, the whole has departed through the sum of its minor changes, hence there is a schism separating them from the Orthodox Church.
Much like the tiles of the mosaic St. Irenaeus used in his argument against the gnostics in Book I Chapter 8 of Against Heresies, the Roman Catholics have rearranged a series of legitimate “tiles” to create an unjustified papacy. In Irenaeus’ example, the image of a king had been rearranged to create the image of a dog or a fox. The point from this example to keep in mind here, however, is that the tiles are proper; their problem is therefore not in whether the tiles are proper, but whether they are in their proper place. Regarding the Roman apologists, the Patristic quotes are real Patristic quotes, the Scripture verses are real Scriptures verses, the Ecumenical Council statements are real Ecumenical Council statements, but their apologists have shifted them to create an image of a pope that is so unlike what an orthodox patriarch looks like that it can be astonishing.
Apologetics here is difficult, though, for entering into the forest of qualifications, the thicket of views, one is easily led astray, tile by tile, stone by stone, for each rearrangement, each addition is seemingly justified by Patristic citations, Councils, Scripture, and logical argument, and so by degrees one receives a heterodox Papism, something that looks utterly unlike the early, Orthodox Roman patriarchate that existed during Rome’s Orthodox period. Tile upon tile, stone upon stone, changes and additions which are typically classified as clarifications, if not “doctrinal developments,” the Orthodox notion of papal primacy has by degrees transformed into papal supremacy. It is for this reason that it is likely fruitless to try to assemble more quotes and citations, for no amount of quoting has ended this schism. Several doctoral degrees together with knowledge of several languages is required to sort this out, if one sought to go that route, but even then success is far from guaranteed.
For the sake of this article, papal primacy refers to the Orthodox doctrine of the Patriarch of Rome’s place of primacy of honor and authority, being the highest court of appeal, but restricted in its governance and jurisdiction to its traditional geographic territories. The position of highest authority is, so to speak, relational rather than positional, which is to say it is not “over top of” the other patriarchates as, say, a conductor or autocrat, but “together with” the other patriarchates as, say, first chair or speaker of the house (under the mystical Presidency of Christ), and as such its relational authority is mediate with that of the other patriarchates and, thus, necessitates concert in order to be exercised aright.
Papal supremacy, on the other hand, here refers to the heterodox doctrine of the Patriarch of Rome’s immediate, universal jurisdiction and unilateral authority over the other patriarchates, including such doctrines as ex cathedra infallibility being an ontological mark, so to speak, or guaranteed charism, of the Patriarch of Rome. This authority structure expresses a top-down model, as a conductor or autocrat, or CEO, an authority exercised unilaterally over the other patriarchates.
Perhaps the two biggest problems, from an Orthodox perspective, are so-called Papal Infallibility and Immediate Universal Jurisdiction. Concerning the first of these, as Vatican I states of Papal Infallibility:
We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
— Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv
And from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium:
This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.
To comment on these, it seems plain that nowhere is there such a remarkable promise explicitly given anywhere in Scripture or in the Church Fathers. Scripture does not indicate that Peter is “over the other apostles.” He certainly was not “over” the Apostle Paul in Galatians 2:11, and I do not see any modern Catholic bishop having such potential scope, for “such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable,” and “should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject” this notion of infallible papal supremacy, he is considered “anathema.” Luckily, this doctrine had not been fully “developed,” lest St. Paul perhaps be anathematized for “opposing Peter to his face” (although Peter was not likely acting ex cathedra) and regarding him as “standing condemned.” Peter likewise did not seem to be “over” James in Acts 15:13-29 when James gave the authoritative judgment concerning the situation that was then at hand.
In these situations, Scripture does not seem to “institute in [Peter] a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.” But to a Catholic apologist this plain fact of Scripture will not be so plain, and so the critique will die the death of a thousand qualifications. Nothing in Scripture, however, gives any sense that a single member of the Church by virtue of office can stand in her place as an infallible representative of the whole Church. But the Vatican Councils have given voice to the shifting of the mosaic’s image such that the Catholics are become the Church of Peter, and any number of qualifications will likely also dismantle Scriptural teachings, such as that from St. Paul to the Corinthians when he infallibly teaches:
you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another, ‘I am of Apollos,’ are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. (1 Corinthians 3:3-7)
But, perhaps to give the Roman Catholics a chance to exercise their exegetical ingenuity, St. Paul does not mention only himself and Apollos, but also Peter: “Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:12-13) Clearly, although chief of the apostles and in possession of great, if not unique, authority, St. Peter is not thereby “a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.” His identity is not treated as a rallying point of unity, and certainly not as grounds for disunity, much less schism, for Christ has not been divided up according to Paul, Apollos, and Peter, but, carefully placing one stone after another, no heap will be found.
It seems clear to Orthodox teaching and to reason that the Holy Spirit does not give the charism of infallibility positionally, or to the occupants of chairs merely by virtue of being selected (infallibly?) to sit in it (by whom?). Of course, at certain moments any Christian can speak infallibly. But to guarantee that a human being will speak infallibly is self-evident hubris. St. Athanasius taught with infallibility regarding the divinity of Christ. St. Basil taught with infallibility concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit. St Maximus also taught with infallibility regarding Christ's two wills. St Gregory Palamas taught with infallibility regarding the distinction between God's essence and energies. But to say this infallibility can be guaranteed to a person on condition that they are the Patriarch of Rome is not an issue of faith, but an elaborate ruse, an idol. Infallibility is, and in principle cannot be, a possession of the human will. Human beings do not possess infallibility as a trait of their person or position. The Papist doctrine of infallibility, however, is a claim about a position, the infallibility of a man based on his occupancy of a certain office.
It should be obvious that no Scriptural promise looks anything like Papal infallibility, or supremacy for that matter. Even the promise that Peter’s faith will not fail is not a promise that he has infallible teaching accuracy and authority, nor is Christ’s naming him Peter, nor His command to feed His sheep, an assignment of supreme governance and visible point man for the global Church, much less that any of this applies ontologically to his “successors.” The Roman Catholics have invested so much of themselves into the authority and identity of the pope, his infallibility and supremacy, that the pope becomes the logo, so to speak, of the Roman Church, a virtual stand-in. He both represents Christ and the Church in his person. Stone by stone, however, there is no heap.
One of the problems is that there is a fundamental distinction between a developed explanation of doctrine, on the one hand, and the development of doctrine itself, on the other. The former is a refinement of language, a clarification of expression, while the latter is a new product that is purported to be genetically present in or based on the older. This distinction could certainly be contentious, but the so-called Novus Ordo comes to mind as a more obvious case in point. Infallibility ought to be another obvious example. Infallibility belongs to the Church as Mystery, in her totality. Councils may express this, even patriarchs may, but the promise is to the Church qua Church.
Does the Apostle Peter’s authority as represented in Scripture look anything like the modern papist version? i.e. immediate universal jurisdiction? Did Peter claim infallibility for himself? Did Paul claim it for him? Did Peter carve the wood and build the chair his successors were to sit on, and lay hands on it such that whoever sits in it receives a guarantee of the charism of infallibility? Where in Scripture is any office, much less anyone, promised perfect, perpetual infallibility based on possession of said office? The judges? The sons of David? Were there no false prophets in Israel? No unfaithful high priests? Did Jesus say anything about Peter being “instituted... a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion”? Are these merely superficial differences, or do they point to a more fundamental shift, even a departure from what the Ancient Peter looked and acted like? A “total makeover” from how the Ancient Church related to his primacy, the answer to all of these questions seems only too obvious. If, however, a person adds slowly one stone upon another, carefully considering each one, they might just convince themselves into denying that a very large heap of stones stands before their very eyes, and that Pope Francis is the virtual twin of St. Peter.
To shift again to the metaphor of the mosaic, each subtle argument shifts a tile, inch by inch, until there is a completely different image, from Peter the chief Apostle to a Universal Patriarch of the planet, of the very galaxy, the infallible CEO of Christ’s Church. These are clearly not the same role, and only by entering into a vortex of qualifications and proof texting can a person get there while at the same time thinking it is legitimate. Sure, each tile of the mosaic is a correct tile, and one can argue the rightness of the tiles all day; the problem is, it’s just not arranged aright.
No comments:
Post a Comment