Skip to content
Quod Ubique The Common Confession of the Universal Church

Layer 4 · 02

Papal Infallibility and Universal Jurisdiction

The Competing Claims

The Roman Catholic Confession

The Bishop of Rome, as successor of the Apostle Peter, possesses by divine institution:

  1. Supreme and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church — not merely a primacy of honor but a primacy of governance. Every bishop, every priest, every layperson is subject to the Pope’s authority directly, without mediation by intermediate structures.

  2. Infallibility when defining doctrine ex cathedra — that is, when speaking in his official capacity as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. In such definitions, the Pope is preserved from error by the divine assistance promised to Peter.

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus (1870): “We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

The scriptural ground is the Petrine texts: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18); “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17); “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail… strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32).

CCC §882: “The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”

The Eastern Orthodox Rejection

Orthodoxy affirms a primacy of honor for the Bishop of Rome — the “first among equals” (primus inter pares) — but absolutely rejects universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility.

The Orthodox position rests on:

  1. Conciliar ecclesiology: Authority in the Church is exercised through councils, not through a single bishop. The ecumenical councils are the highest authority in the Church, and no bishop — including Rome — stands above them. The Pope is a patriarch among patriarchs, the first in honor because Rome was the imperial capital, not because of a divine prerogative unique to Peter’s successors.

  2. The Petrine office is shared: All bishops are successors of Peter, not only the Bishop of Rome. Peter’s confession is the rock (Matthew 16:18 is about the confession, not the person), and every bishop who makes Peter’s confession shares Peter’s ministry. Cyprian of Carthage argued this in the third century (De Unitate 4): the primacy given to Peter was given to all the apostles equally.

  3. Historical critique: Papal supremacy as defined at Vatican I is a development unknown to the first millennium. The Eastern patriarchs were never subject to Roman jurisdiction in the way Vatican I claims. The pentarchy (five patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) governed the Church collegially, with Rome holding a primacy of honor, not of jurisdiction.

John Meyendorff: “The papacy, as defined by Vatican I, is not only unacceptable to the Orthodox Church but is seen as the very cause of the schism of 1054, because it substituted a monarchical principle for the conciliar principle that had governed the Church for a thousand years” [∗].

The Protestant Rejection

Protestantism rejects both papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as lacking scriptural warrant and contradicted by historical evidence.

The Reformation’s case:

  1. Matthew 16:18 does not establish an office of perpetual, infallible successors. Peter himself erred (Galatians 2:11, where Paul opposed Peter “to his face”). If Peter was fallible, his successors cannot claim infallibility.
  2. No New Testament evidence that Peter exercised universal jurisdiction. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was presided over by James, not Peter. Paul’s apostleship was “not from men nor through man” (Galatians 1:1) — independent of Peter.
  3. Historical popes have erred. Pope Honorius I (625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople (681) — an ecumenical council recognized by Rome itself. Pope Liberius (352-366) is reported by several ancient sources to have signed a semi-Arian formula during his exile at Sirmium (c. 357) under pressure from Constantius II; the historicity of this episode is disputed by modern Catholic scholarship (the primary sources include letters of contested authenticity), though the Arian accounts of Philostorgius attribute the signing to Liberius directly. If popes can err, the charism of infallibility is falsified by history.
  4. The Smalcald Articles (1537): “The Pope is not the head of all Christendom by divine right… This is proved by the fact that the ancient Church and the ancient councils knew nothing of such a claim.”

The Westminster Confession (25.6): “There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense be head thereof.”

Scriptural Warrant

For the papal claims:

  • “You are Peter (Petros), and on this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19) — Peter receives a unique commission
  • “Feed my lambs… Tend my sheep… Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17) — the threefold pastoral charge
  • “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:32) — a prayer for Peter’s faithfulness, read as a charism for his office

Against the papal claims:

  • “I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11) — Paul rebukes Peter publicly. If Peter had supreme jurisdiction, Paul’s action is insubordination. If he didn’t, Paul’s action is apostolic fraternal correction.
  • “One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers” (Matthew 23:8) — Jesus prohibits titles of spiritual superiority
  • “Not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:3) — Peter himself warns against domination in the pastoral office
  • The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) — James, not Peter, delivers the final ruling

Historical Development

  • Early centuries (1st-5th): Rome held a recognized primacy of honor as the see of Peter and Paul, the church of the imperial capital, and a court of appeal in disputes. But this primacy was understood differently in East and West. Pope Leo I (440-461) made strong claims of Petrine authority; the East generally resisted them while respecting Rome’s prestige. The Council of Chalcedon (451), Canon 28, granted Constantinople “equal privileges” to Rome on the ground that Constantinople was the new imperial capital — Rome objected.

  • The Gregorian Reform (11th century): Pope Gregory VII’s Dictatus Papae (1075) asserted 27 propositions including: “The Roman pontiff alone can rightly be called universal”; “He alone may use the imperial insignia”; “He may depose emperors.” This marked the transformation of Roman primacy from a first-among-equals to a monarchical claim.

  • The Great Schism (1054): The mutual excommunications between Rome and Constantinople were not primarily about the papacy — the immediate issues were the Filioque, azymes (unleavened bread), and other disciplinary matters. But the underlying ecclesiological divergence — papal monarchy vs. conciliar collegiality — was the structural fault that made reunion impossible.

  • Vatican I (1870): Defined papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction as dogma. The definition was controversial even within Catholicism — the minority at the council (including many bishops from the historical patriarchates) opposed the definition as inopportune or excessive. The Old Catholic churches split from Rome over this definition.

  • Vatican II (1962-1965): Lumen Gentium balanced Vatican I’s papal definitions with a stronger theology of episcopal collegiality (Chapter 3). The Pope exercises authority within the college of bishops, not above it. But Vatican II explicitly affirmed Vatican I’s definitions as binding, so the balancing act is a matter of emphasis, not revision.

The Precise Point of Incompatibility

Two irreducible claims collide:

  1. Does the Bishop of Rome possess, by divine institution, supreme jurisdiction over the entire Church? Rome says yes — Vatican I defined it. Orthodoxy says no — no single bishop holds such authority; the Church is governed conciliarly. Protestantism says no — Christ alone is head of the Church; any human claims to universal jurisdiction are usurpation.

  2. Can the Pope define doctrine infallibly, “of himself and not by the consent of the Church”? This is the sharpest point. Vatican I’s phrase ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae — “of himself, and not from the consent of the Church” — is the irreducible claim. Orthodoxy holds that no individual can speak infallibly apart from the reception of the whole Church through a council. Protestantism holds that Scripture alone is infallible; all human teachers, including popes, can and do err.

These claims cannot be harmonized. If Vatican I is correct, then the Orthodox rejection of papal jurisdiction is a refusal of divinely instituted authority. If the Orthodox position is correct, then Vatican I defined as dogma a claim that the undivided Church never held — making it an innovation, not a development.

Convergence Already Achieved

  • The Ravenna Document (2007): The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church agreed that “both sides agree that… Rome, as the Church that presides in charity, occupied the first place” in the early Church. But the document left unresolved whether this primacy is of divine or human institution, and what concrete prerogatives it entails. (Moscow boycotted the session.)

  • ARCIC on Authority: ARCIC’s statements on authority (Authority in the Church I, 1976; Authority in the Church II, 1981; The Gift of Authority, 1999) made significant progress toward understanding primacy as a ministry of unity, but did not resolve the infallibility question.

  • Vatican II’s emphasis on collegiality (Lumen Gentium ch. 3) moved Roman self-understanding toward a more conciliar model — but without retracting Vatican I.

  • Pope Francis’s 2015 speech to the Eastern Churches: “We must look at the first millennium to find inspiration” for a renewed understanding of papal primacy. This is the most significant papal statement toward Orthodox concerns on this question.

What Reconciliation Would Require

From Rome: This is the hardest concession in all of Christian ecumenism — and the RedTeam attack on this document correctly identifies the ex sese clause (“of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church”) as the single hardest sentence in all of Christian ecumenism. Any reconciliation must pass through this clause, not around it. Rome would need to receive in fuller context (not retract — Rome does not retract dogma) Vatican I’s definitions in a way that makes them compatible with the conciliar ecclesiology of the first millennium. Concretely, this might mean:

  • Interpreting “universal jurisdiction” as universal pastoral solicitude rather than universal governing authority — a primacy of service, not of command
  • Interpreting “not by the consent of the Church” to mean “not requiring prior ratification” while acknowledging that reception by the Church is integral to the exercise of any teaching authority
  • Distinguishing between the charism of primacy (real, permanent, Petrine) and its exercise (historically conditioned, reformable, capable of being exercised in very different ways)

This would cost Rome the appearance of sovereignty — the claim to jurisdiction would be reframed rather than retracted, but the practical effect would be dramatic. The Pope would become functionally what the Orthodox already acknowledge: a first among equals with a genuine ministry of unity, but not a sovereign over the other patriarchs.

From Orthodoxy: A willingness to accept that some form of universal primacy is not merely an accident of history but a genuine charism given to the Church — that the Petrine ministry is real, not merely honorific. The Ravenna Document moved in this direction. Orthodoxy would not need to accept Vatican I’s definitions, but it would need to articulate a positive theology of primacy (not merely a negative rejection of papal claims). What does the first bishop do? What authority does the primacy carry? Orthodoxy has historically been better at saying what the Pope is not than at saying what a universal primate should be.

From Protestantism: A willingness to take episcopal and primatial structures more seriously as genuine gifts to the Church — not as necessary for salvation, but as necessary for visible unity. The Reformation’s rejection of papal claims was historically justified by the abuses of the late medieval papacy, but the Reformation’s own ecclesiological chaos (thousands of denominations, no visible structural unity) is itself an argument that some form of universal visible leadership may be needed.

The cost for each tradition: Rome would lose the appearance of sovereignty. Orthodoxy would gain the burden of articulating a positive primacy. Protestantism would confront its own structural fragmentation. Each would lose something it currently holds dear — and each would gain something it currently lacks.

For Further Study

  1. Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus (1870) — the definitive papal definition
  2. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Chapter 3 (1964) — the conciliar balancing
  3. Joint International Commission, The Ravenna Document (2007) — Catholic-Orthodox convergence on primacy
  4. Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present (1996) — the standard historical study
  5. John Meyendorff, The Primacy of Peter (1992) — the Orthodox case against papal supremacy