In this clip, Cy Kellett welcomes Joe Heschmeyer to discuss the objections raised by an Orthodox caller regarding the papacy. Joe dives into the historical context and authority structure established by Christ, addressing the key concerns about papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Tune in for a thought-provoking exchange on this critical topic!
Transcript:
Caller: I’m orthodox. There’s so much that the orthodox and the Catholic, you know, share. And it’s such a grievous wound in the bottom that there’s, you know, that there exists this division. but I would say that one of the reasons why I am not Catholic, the big one for me is, is, the papacy. And in particular it is, the papacy, you know, as expressed in Pastor, Eternus, at the, Council, at the Vatican Council, the first, Vatican Council. you know, looking at this, why is it necessary to sort of lay out, many of the claims? Some of them, you know, some of them are reasonable. Some of them are, I think, you know, just have no historicity, to them, like I’ll give you an example. I think, ah, infallible authority, I think is one universal, ah, jurisdiction. So when I look at the first millennium church, I simply don’t see the Catholic Church of today.
Joe Heschmeyer: Well, let me begin by saying I think that it’s the single best reason to be Orthodox and not Catholic. If you reject the papacy. I mean, there’s plenty of things, if you prefer leavened bread over unleavened bread in the Eucharist or something like that, or you have thoughts about whether the filioque should have been added to the creed or not. in my mind, those are not the kind of issues that should decide if one is Catholic or Orthodox. It’s this question of what’s the authority structure set up by Christ? Did he set up a structure whereby one bishop or one apostle had a particular authority amongst the others, or did he set it up with 12 co. Equal heads? And so I think you’re absolutely right. You’re asking the right question. In other words, however, I obviously disagree with kind of where you come out on that question. So I appreciate you honing in on the right issue. I appreciate all the common ground that you rightly say that we have. on the question of whether the Catholics, whether the Christian and the first millennium were Catholic or not, I would point, to a few different areas. But before I do that, if I may, I assume that you would look to like the ecumenical councils for authority. Is that a fair assumption?
Caller: Yes, I absolutely would see the ecumenical councils as being infallible.
Joe Heschmeyer: How many ecumenical councils do you think there are?
Caller: Well, okay, I was going to ask you that question because it depends on what you mean by ecumenical council. I’d say there’s seven, ecumenical councils that I would hold to as Orthodox. I know you have more counsel that you would consider.
Joe Heschmeyer: What I would actually say on the Orthodox side is there’s actually not that much agreement about there being seven and only seven in the US There is, but Bishop, Calistus Ware of Happy Memory, described the problem this way. He said, how then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an ecumenical council and therefore that its decrees are infallible? Many councils have considered themselves ecumenical and have claimed to speak in the name of the whole church, and yet the Church has rejected them as heretical. He mentioned second Ephesus, the so called Robber Council, the Iconoclast Council of Hieria in 758 and in Florence in 1438-39 where the Orthodox actually agreed the Pope is the head of the Church, and then later went back and rejected that. And so there are at least three cases of councils that appear to be valid ecumenical councils that Callistus Ware points out that, how do we account from an orthodox ecclesiology, why they’re not ecumenical councils. And Ware goes on and says, precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear. And so, we know that there are some Orthodox who accept the Council of Trullo. we know there are some who believe there’s an 8th Ecumenical Council, 4th Constantinople 79. Some even have a 9th Ecumenical Council, so called 5th Constantinople. There was the attempt at an ecumenical Council in 2016, the so called Great Council. So what makes those seven the valid ecumenical councils of the first millennium? And the best answer to that is the acceptance by the Bishop of Rome, by the Pope that, that without him you don’t have any principle in which to say these seven and only these seven councils are considered ecumenical. Because in the early Church, prior to the Great Schism, there are seven that are accepted by the Pope and Orthodox still hold to those seven and only those seven. The most glaring example of this is the so called robber council, the second council of Ephesus. Now this is in 449. So it’s between the third council Ephesus and the fourth council Chalcedon. And it’s heretical and yet it has, it appears to be a valid ecumenical council. But the Pope’s legate Hilary just says contradicitur. He just says like I contradict this. And he flees and goes back. and the pope, Pope Leo says it’s a robber council and by his singular authority rejects this entire body that was putatively an ecumenical council. It makes it very clear that an ecumenical council is not above a pope. It makes it very clear that an ecumenical council’s authority requires papal approval. And this decree by Pope Leo was accepted both in the west and in the East. And so after this, and you have just a few years later, two years later, Chalcedon, in which Leo is declared Peter, that Peter speaks through Leo. And they affirm Chalcedonian orthodoxy. So I don’t know a way to affirm that from an Orthodox perspective, because clearly both Orthodox and Catholics are going to say the conclusion was the right one. Second emphasis is wrong. Chalcedon is correct. But the only way to get to that Conclusion that I see from history is by the Pope’s authority even over at ecumenical council. What would you say to that? Joaquin
Caller: So what I would say is, yes, so though I would, I would agree that there certainly was some, you know, especially at Chalcedon, you know, the description of the Pope, the Roman Pontiff in very exalted terms and that there was certainly some authority there. I think that, that when you get to Pastor A. Turnus, though, it changes qualitative. Right. So I think, I think what happens then is where it’s still collegial, whilst there is a primacy which I don’t think any right minded orthodox should or could deny. I mean, of course, if I
Joe Heschmeyer: May jump in, I know you’ll grant primacy, but would you grant that the Pope has the ability to determine what is and isn’t an ecumenical council?
Caller: Well, amongst other things you would also say that the church has to fully receive this council as ecumenical for it to be ecumenical. Right. You’d have to also agree that that’s necessary.
Joe Heschmeyer: What would that look like? So I mean take even Chalcedon or Chalcedon. There’s non Chalcedonian Christians. Right. There are people who break off from the church because they reject the council. So how do we know whether the council or the schismatics are in the wrong there? I think going by the reception in the church is very difficult because it’s a very amorphous kind of standard. because which Christians are we counting?
Caller: Well, I mean, I think you’re right. I think, and I mean in that respect, I’m just not sure. I think it’s a combination. So what I’m trying to get at is I’m agreeing with the idea of primacy. I’m just pushing back at the idea of, of supremacy as you seem to want to sort of define. Right. So this, this idea is I think an evolution of that primacy. and I would say that the first millennium, Now I’m not saying that in all fairness, I’m not saying that orthodox ecclesiology, I’m going to be probably castigated for saying this, but it is absolutely spot on. I mean we’ve got issues of our own, serious issues. but I’m not sure that the solution or what happens at Vatican I, I don’t think it’s a Solution, I think you see this as literally led by the Holy Spirit, is actually what the first millennium church looks like. And I think the reason I’m saying that is because why would it be necessary to declare something like this at Vatican 1? So many, you know, like, ah,
Joe Heschmeyer: Yes, that’s a very good question. Because it was, it was so hotly disputed. I mean, clearly it’s not the first. It isn’t like the 1800s. It’s the first time you see the Pope playing this major role or being treated as infallible. You go back to st. Irenaeus in 180, you know, that’s 10% of the way to 1800. And he says it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, meaning the Roman Church, on account of its preeminent authority. That’s everything that you just talked about. That’s supremacy and authority. that’s the need to agree with it in matters of faith and morals. Right? That includes within it the idea that obviously that church cannot be in error, or else he’d be saying you have to agree on error. So there is implicitly, even there, some hint to something like papal infallibility. But you’re right that, like this role of the pope should never be exercised in isolation from collegiality. And Vatican I doesn’t mean to deny that. Vatican II is even more explicit on that. Now, the important historical detail. Vatican I is interrupted by the Franco Prussian War. And so you have what’s kind of a half of a council. And so it did produce, I think you’re right in saying, kind of a lopsided ecclesiology that focuses on the role of the pope and not understanding the other half of that coin, which is the role of the college of bishops. Vatican II takes up the mantle there, especially in Lumen Gentium, and finishes the thought. So in paragraph 27 of Lumen Gentium, it says bishops are vicars and ambassadors of Christ. They’re vicars of Christ as well as the Pope is. And it makes clear explicitly they are not to be regarded as vicars of the Roman pontiffs. In other words, the bishops are not just the middle management between the Pope and your local parish. And too often, even Catholics have fallen into this kind of lopsided ecclesiology. But that’s not the teaching of the Catholic Church. It never has been. Now, in practice, there may be popes who overstepped their authority. That’s not new to the second millennium. We see that in the first millennium. You go Back to Pope Victor, again in, like, 180, 190, and you see him excommunicating all the churches in Asia Minor. that was an abuse of his legitimate authority. And Pope Irenaeus, the same pope who talked about the necessity of agreeing with the pope, exceedingly the same bishop, which I put the necessity of agreeing with, Pope kind of talks Victor down from misusing his authority in that way. So I’d say the abuses you highlight are real, but they’re ones we see in the first millennium, in the second century, as well as in modern times. well, we’re going to have to
Cy Kellett: Leave it there, as you can hear. but, thank you very, very much for the call. What a great conversation, about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but lots more great conversations to come. Go ahead and call now, and we’ll have Jimmy Akin here with us.