On the Validity of the Papacy, Part I

This is the first of a series of posts I'd like to do about the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy.  To me, this doctrine represents the principle separation between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity; these being the two largest Christian traditions on the planet, this issue has a high degree of relevance for our common pursuit of Christian unity.

Protestants, too, look on this debate with great interest.  Not only do they (like the Orthodox) disagree with the Roman Catholic perspective on the papacy, but they tend to view Roman Catholic and Orthodox disagreement over this issue as evidence that tradition in general ought to be rejected.  Answering this issue, then, becomes important for the general unity of all Christians (with about half of Christianity accepting the papacy as articulated by the Roman Catholic Church and the other half rejecting it).

The papacy, though, for all of its centrality, is a multi-layered and complex doctrine.  The doctrine is also unique within Christianity because not only is the effective doctrine itself a Holy Tradition, but the very warrant given FOR that doctrine is ALSO Holy Tradition.  It is not sufficient to accept the papacy as the center of unity within the college of bishops (or even that, because of this centrality, the pope possesses limited infallibility).  This practical outworking of the doctrine of the papacy certainly IS Holy Tradition to the Roman Catholic, but the reasons behind that practical outworking must also be accepted.  This means the unique Petrine succession of the Roman bishop must be the reason for the Pope's unique authority (and no other reason - such as the centrality of Rome as the capitol of the empire in the early church - is acceptable).

In this first post, I just want to lay out the range of what it is that Roman Catholics must demonstrate in order for the papacy to be considered Holy Tradition.  In subsequent posts I'll work through each layer of the doctrine and examine it on historical, as well as theological, grounds.

To the jump...



The Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy makes a significant claim - it is not merely a preference by the Roman church for a particularly centralized government.  Many of the arguments in favor of the papacy take a form like this (i.e. centralized government provides better for Christian unity, or certitude in doctrinal debates, etc.).   No pragmatic argument, however, could justify the way in which the papacy is applied as a criterion for full catholicity.  To be fully catholic, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church, one must be in communion with the Pope.  The word catholic is of particular importance here, as it implies several things:

1. Catholic means "holistic" or "according to the whole."  It implies the fullness of the faith necessary or proper for salvation.  A doctrine that, if rejected, removes one from full catholicity is a doctrine that, if rejected, removes something necessary or proper to salvation.  It is, in other words, a necessary doctrine - one that is fundamental to the very meaning of the word "Christian."
2. This, necessarily, implies that it is a traditional doctrine as, by logic, the Apostles and their immediate successors had the fullness of the faith (seeing as they heard it from the author and founder of the faith or from the faith's foundational building blocks).  Roman Catholics do have an interesting way of trying to modify this particular point by describing tradition as dynamic or developing, but broadly speaking they do wish to teach that the papacy is traditional (so it remains relevant).  Furthermore, to admit that it was not present in the early church, but that it is necessary or proper for salvation, would imply that the early church (i.e. the Apostles themselves) were not fully equipped for salvation.
3. This, further, implies that it must be universal (as the same Spirit saves the early saints in both East and West, North and South).  That is to say, if we find the doctrine appearing in one place and not another (but accept that it was traditional) then we ought, by logic, to be able to find a cause or point in time at which the doctrine changed in the offending region (since all regions have, as the origin of their traditions, the common Apostolic faith).  Evidently, the papacy did NOT become universal doctrine OR the East changed its doctrine.  It should be possible, then, for that change in doctrine by the East to be located in time with a demonstratable cause.  Conversely, any counter perspective claiming to be traditional must also be able to account in time and history for the shift or change in the Roman Catholic position (by the same logic).

This, then, gives us a fairly rigorous test through which we can put the Roman doctrine of papal centralism (including its implication: papal infallibility).  The doctrine must be demonstratably necessary for salvation, traditional, and universal in its development.  If it isn't all three of these, then the Roman Catholic Church has erred (severely) in excommunicating / anathematizing those who disagree with this doctrine (including the Orthodox and the Protestants).  In fact, it would be (at that point) proper for the Orthodox to describe the Catholic church as "schismatic" - not necessarily heretical, but erring in needlessly dividing the Church over a non-essential issue.

And what is it that must be demonstrated?  Nothing less than the following:

• That Peter was the rock of Matt 16
• That Peter's role as rock implied princedom over the other Apostles
• That the Bishop of Rome (and no other bishop) uniquely succeeds from Peter
• That the Bishop of Rome directly succeeds from Peter (and not a prior pope)
• That included in this succession is princedom over the other bishops
• That this princedom implies an assurance of orthodoxy
• That this broad assurance of orthodoxy implies a limited infallibility

I'm trying to be generous here in the sense of not demanding the usage of particular language - as we certainly agree with the Roman Catholic Church that definitions and doctrines may be clarified (over time, in response to heresies).  What, then would we expect to find in the early church, Christian theology, and ecclesial history?

1. No teaching contradicting any of the above which was broadly believed or practiced.
2. No clear evidence of extended error from the papacy (heresiararchs), as this would fundamentally remove the possibility of seeing the papacy as a guarantee of Orthodoxy.
3. An early and consistent exegesis of Matt 16 along the lines of the current Roman Catholic exegesis of that passage.
4. A clear deference to the bishop of Rome for reasons of Petrine succession (and not for any other explicit or implicit reason).
5. A clear refusal to ascribe Petrine succession to any bishop other than the one geographically located in Rome (or overseeing Rome - I'm not intending to use the Avignon papacy against the Catholic claims).

In short, we would expect to see the church in the past behave much like the Catholic church today.  If it DOESN'T, then I think the Catholic position has to own up to being untraditional and, therefore, uncatholic.  Think of other doctrines regarded as catholic: the Incarnation and Trinity.  The precision of language developed over time (as it has done with the papacy), but the basic underlying doctrines can be observed from an early date, are universal, and are clearly necessary for salvation (i.e. are saving truths).

My contention, in subsequent posts, will be that the papacy does not pass this test.  As such, it must be downgraded at the least to the category of pious opinion and, at that point, the Roman Church which is (currently) behaving as if this WERE Holy Tradition would need to be recognized as a schismatic movement.

A final note: given the complexity of this argument, I wish to recognize the respectability and sincerity of my Catholic brothers and sisters.  My intention is not to dismiss them nor assume that they are somehow ignorant of the history I'm intending to explore.  They are not.  Catholics have a long history of strong academics - but I believe them to be wrong on this point, and I believe it proper in dialogue to explore authentic disagreements with respectful frankness.  That (not mere polemics) is my intent here.  If I get my history, or my statement of Catholic doctrine, wrong, please correct it.  If I come across as disrespectful, please comment on the relevant passage and I'll seek to edit and clarify my language to remove the offense (unless you are just offended at the fact that I am willing to disagree with someone).

In Christ,
Macarius