Papal Infallibility in the First Millennium

St. Peter returns the keys of the kingdom to our Lord at the Second Coming

It’s often supposed that Vatican I’s teaching on papal infallibility really just came out of nowhere. While the saints, synods, and popes of the first millennium certainly made lofty claims about the Roman Church, affirming her headship over the Episcopate and pristine orthodoxy, we’re assured that all of them would have stood in unison against Pastor Aeternus’ decree that the definitive judgments of the pope are, of themselves and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. At face value, this position seems attractive, and even has the support of many modern Catholic scholars who have lost their faith in the Church’s infallible teaching authority. However, in this article, I’m going to provide a series of patristic and conciliar citations, along with detailed explanations, that I believe thoroughly demonstrate that the claims of Vatican I would not have been utterly rejected by everyone in the first millennium.

The reason why many people don’t see this, I believe, is because they’re not looking in the right places. Apologists of all stripes often think that, if Vatican I really was present in the first millennium, we would be seeing ex cathedra decrees all over the place, the popes deposing and appointing bishops at will all over the world, and so on. However, this is to miss the forest for the trees. Pastor Aeternus isn’t just a document that teaches papal infallibility, rather it tells a whole story about what our Lord did for His Church at Caesarea Philippi and the Sea of Tiberias, how these Petrine commissions have been interpreted “in all ages,” and what their theological consequences are. When approached from this perspective, I believe it’s actually quite clear that the Roman Church’s teaching at Vatican I was inevitable. Based on what she has always believed about herself, Rome declaring her bishop to be protected from error when teaching in a definitive capacity is the very least of what we would expect. “You saw that coming,” as one of my old professors would say when earlier theological ideas obviously anticipated later ones. To be clear, the purpose of this article isn’t to exhaustively prove the truthfulness of Vatican I, but more so to document the historical and theological “logic” behind it. With that said, let’s begin.

A.D. 382. Pope St. Damasus and the Roman Synod.

Likewise it is decreed: ...we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all Catholic churches throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless the holy Roman Church has been set before the other churches not by any synodical decrees but by the evangelical voice of our Lord and Savior, saying: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything of the kind. The second see was consecrated at Alexandria, in the name of Blessed Peter, by his disciple the evangelist Mark, and he, having been sent by St. Peter into Egypt, preached the word of truth and consummated a glorious martyrdom. The third see [of the most blessed apostle Peter] is at Antioch, which is considered honorable because he lived there before he came to Rome, and there the name of the new nation of Christians first arose.

PL 13: 374-6, qtd. in Scott Butler and John Collorafi, Keys Over the Christian World, p. 75.

According to Pope St. Damasus and the Roman synod of 382, what is the origin of Rome’s headship over the universal Church? Is it of ecclesiastical origin, such that it could possibly be altered or revoked by some other ecclesiastical authority? No. Rather, the Roman Church being “set before the other churches” is a direct result of Jesus’ commission to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-18. While the Church of Alexandria holds its place because it was established “in the name of Blessed Peter, by his disciple the evangelist Mark,” and the Church of Antioch holds its place “because [Peter] lived there before he came to Rome,” Rome holds its place because of “the evangelical voice of our Lord and Savior, saying: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” In other words, Rome alone holds its ecclesiastical rank because of a divine institution, and the other Sees hold their ranks because of their accidental relations to that divine institution. Just as the individual man St. Peter was the head of the entire Apostolic College, so too is his successor, the bishop of the Roman Church, the head of the Apostolic College’s successor, the Episcopal College.

What does this have to do with papal infallibility? Quite simply, if the Roman Pontiff is the divinely instituted successor of St. Peter, if he’s the very reason why “the gates of hell will not prevail against” the Church, then how could he ever bind heresy on the faithful under pain of sin? If he could, then this would surely remove him from his place as the head of the Church, as God would never force anyone to embrace heresy for the sake of remaining in the Catholic Church’s communion. If the options were either embrace heresy or reject Roman communion, one would have to do the latter, meaning the Apostolic See itself would be grafted out of Christ’s body. Yet if the papacy, like the episcopacy, is divinely instituted, then the Church can no more exist without the Roman Pontiff than it could exist without bishops. Thus, if the Apostolic See was removed from the Church on account of papal heresy, it would destroy the promise of Christ that He would be with His Church, as He constituted it, “until the close of the age” (Matt 28:20). Therefore, although St. Damasus and this synod weren’t explicitly teaching papal infallibility, Vatican I is the only modern ecclesiological paradigm that takes their papal teachings seriously.

A.D. 431. Profession of Philip the Presbyter at the Third Ecumenical Council.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. […] 

There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. [...]

Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: The professions which have been made by Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West.

Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), “Extracts From the Acts,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 14, eds. Phillip Shaff and Henry Wace trans. Henry Percival, for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm.  

According to Philip, our Lord’s appointment of “blessed Peter the Apostle” as “the head of the Apostles” entails that the pope is “the holy head” of the Catholic Church today. This is because, as “it has been known in all ages,” the prince and head of the Apostles, blessed Peter, “down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.” That only one man could be Peter’s successor at any given time is clear from Philip’s next statement: “The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.” What place does the Roman Pontiff hold? That of being the “prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church.” Until when will the bishops of Rome hold this place? “Down even to today and forever.” Although this isn’t explicitly teaching papal infallibility, it’s hard to see how, if one really believes this, such a conclusion could be avoided. How is it that the Roman Pontiff could remain the divinely instituted head of the Catholic Church until the end of time, if, in his definitively binding decrees on the Church, he could enforce heresy? If the acceptance of heresy was ever required for sharing Roman communion, then surely the Apostolic See would no longer head the Church. However, if that ever happened, how could it truly be said that “blessed Peter the Apostle” remains, by divine appointment, “the holy head” of the Church “even to today and forever”? Clearly, it couldn’t. Thus, Philip’s profession of faith, which was accepted by St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Third Ecumenical Council, logically anticipates Vatican I’s definition of papal infallibility.

A.D. 440-461 Pope St. Leo the Great.

The dispensation of truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter preserving in the strength of the rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ… And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See [Rome].

Leo, Sermon 3, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 12, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Charles Lett Feltoe (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895), rev. and ed. for New Advent by Kevin Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360303.htm. 

According to Pope St. Leo the Great, our Lord’s promise to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-18 was uniquely applicable to him alone, in that he was the only Apostle who stood at “the helm of the Church,” serving as its personal “foundation.” Although St. Leo elsewhere applies Petrine imagery to the Episcopate as a whole in a relative sense, as each bishop indeed stands as the local Peter of his diocese, the saintly Pontiff reserves the full meaning of the Petrine ministry to his own (universal) papal office. It is because of our Lord’s promise to St. Peter that, whenever “anything is rightly decreed” by the Apostolic See, it is the “authority” of Peter himself that stands behind such decrees. After all, because he is the rock foundation of the Church, “the dispensation of truth therefore abides” always in Peter and his successors, in “his See,” i.e. Rome. Once again, we don’t have a full-blown theology of papal infallibility going on in the Leonine corpus, however, if we take doctrinal development seriously, it really does seem like we’re on a collision course with Vatican I. 

A.D. 468-483. Pope St. Simplicius.

Those genuine and clear [truths] which flow from the very pure fountains of the Scriptures cannot be disturbed by any arguments of misty subtlety. For this same norm of apostolic doctrine endures in the successors of him upon whom the Lord imposed the care of the whole sheepfold, whom [He promised] would not fail even to the end of the world, against whom He promised that the gates of hell would never prevail, by whose judgment He testified that what was bound on earth could not be loosed in heaven.

Simplicius, Cuperem Quidem, Mansi 7.975, qtd. in Ybarra, p. 377.

Only two papacies removed from St. Leo, Pope St. Simplicius is well within the bounds of what we would expect from first millennium Rome. The Pontiff is very clear that, because of our Lord’s commission to St. Peter in the Gospels of Matthew and John, “apostolic doctrine endures” in the successors of Peter, the bishops of Rome, “even to the end of the world.” How do we know that he isn’t equating all bishops with St. Peter in this quote? Aside from how unlikely such an idea would be in historical context, just consider what St. Simplicius believed St. Peter’s role in the Church was: “[the one] upon whom the Lord imposed the care of the whole sheepfold.” How would every bishop, by divine right, be in charge of “the whole” universal Church? If there is to be a head of the Episcopal College at all, as there was a head of the Apostolic College, it could only be fulfilled by one man. And so, with that in mind, this point really cannot be stressed enough: why, according to St. Simplicius, will the true faith endure in the Roman Pontiffs until the end of time? It’s because our Lord “promised that the gates of hell would never prevail” against Peter and his successors. In a certain way, this Saint of both East and West seems to be making stronger claims than Vatican I would go on to. After all, St. Simplicius is not making any explicit distinctions between “definitive” and “non-definitive” papal teachings here, he’s simply exegeting Matthew 16 and John 21, taking them to mean that, by divine promise, the successors of Peter in Rome will always uphold the true faith until the end of time. If that’s not some form of papal infallibility, then I’m not sure what would be. 

A.D. 492-496. Pope St. Gelasius I.

Let no true Christian ignore the fact that the constitution of any synod which has been approved by the consent of the whole Church can be executed by no other See than the first, which confirms any synod by its authority and watches over it through continuous supervision, especially because of its principate, which the Blessed Peter the Apostle obtained through the word of the Lord and which it has always retained and continues to retain.

Collectio Avellana, Epistle 95, 10-11, qtd. in Erick Ybarra, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox, p. 388

According to Pope St. Gelasius, the reason why Rome’s consent is absolutely essential for a synod of bishops to teach authoritatively is not because of any post-apostolic canonical/ecclesiastical structures. Rather, it’s because of the Roman See’s “principate,” which she received from “Blessed Peter the Apostle,” who himself “obtained [this authority] through the word of the Lord.” Already this is hinting at papal infallibility because, if the pope really is the authority whose consent the Lord requires for authoritative ecclesiastical judgments, then how would it ever be possible for Rome to sever herself from the very body of which she is the head? Since her divine headship wasn’t created by the Church, but rather by God, it can’t be taken away or moved to another See by the Church. Only God Himself could take away the Roman primacy, but since, in St. Gelasius’ mind, this primacy is founded on the Petrine commission that was intended to last until the end of time, there’s no conceivable way for Rome to lose her place in the Church before the Second Coming of Christ. All of this plants the seeds of papal infallibility, which is brought out even more explicitly in the second quote below. 

This is just what the Apostolic See takes great care against—that because its pure roots are in the Apostle’s glorious confession, that it be marred by no crack of wickedness, no contagion. For if, God forbid, something we trust could not happen, such a thing were to result, how could we dare resist any error? Whence would we seek correction for those in error? … What are we to do about the entire world, if, God forbid, it were misled by us? … If we [Rome] lose them [faithfulness to the truth and communion], God forbid, how could anything ever be restored again, especially if in its summit, the Apostolic See, it became attainted, something God would never allow to happen… If I, God forbid, were to become an accomplice in the evil, then I would be in need of remedy myself, rather than being able to offer one; and the See of Blessed Peter, would be seeking a remedy from elsewhere rather than itself offering a remedy to others [something that God would never allow to happen.]

Thiel, ed. Epistolae Romanorum, t.1., 353, 302, 306, qtd. in Ybarra, p. 389.

This is perhaps the most explicit affirmation of papal infallibility we have seen thus far. Because the Church of Rome has “its pure roots in the Apostle’s [Peter’s] glorious confession,” i.e. because of Rome’s divinely instituted “principate” over the Church, this is why she can “be marred by no crack of wickedness, no contagion.” Why does St. Gelasius believe that Rome falling into heresy is something that “could not happen”? Well if it ever did, then “how could we dare resist any error? Whence would we seek correction for those in error?” Just think about it. Since Rome is, by divine institution, the highest See there is, and there is no ecclesiastical authority to appeal to beyond her, if she required all of the faithful to embrace heresy, then Christians would have to choose between membership in the Catholic Church and heresy, a morally impossible scenario. However, because God can never demand the impossible, this is why St. Gelasius believed that papal heresy is “something God would never allow to happen.” For, “how could anything ever be restored again, especially if in [the Church’s] summit, the Apostolic See, it became attainted?” As in the previous quote, St. Gelasius here clearly views the Church’s authority as a kind of pyramid, with the Apostolic See at the top. The buck always stops with Rome. As such, if there’s no higher court of appeals than the pope’s judgment, then if he were to give a heretical judgment, he would necessarily lead the entire Church into error, since God commands all Christians to obey the pope and He instituted no earthly authority to correct him. This would, in St. Gelasius’ words, cause the entire Church to become “attainted” by falsehood, and for this reason, it’s something that “could not happen.” It thus follows that, in the mind of the 5th century Roman Church, whenever binding papal decrees are given, they must be infallible.

A.D. 498-506. Roman Synod Against Antipope Laurentius.

The person [Pope St. Symmachus] who was attacked ought himself to have called a Council, knowing that to his See in the first place the rank or chiefship of the Apostle Peter, and then the authority of venerable Councils following out the Lord’s command, had committed a power without like in the Churches; nor would a precedent be easily found to show, that in a similar matter the Prelate of the aforementioned See had been subject to the judgment of his inferiors.

Mansi 8.248, qtd. in Ybarra, p. 424.

According to these 5th century Italian bishops, because of “the Lord’s command” in the Gospels, the Roman See holds “the rank or chiefship of the Apostle Peter.” This is “a power without like in the Churches,” since it belongs solely to the Roman Church, and because of this divine power, it has never been known that “the Prelate of the aforementioned See had been subject to the judgment of his inferiors.” Like St. Gelasius, this synod is clearly hinting at a teaching that remains in the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law to this day, “The first See is judged by no one” (Canon 1404). Although papal infallibility is not explicit in this teaching, we can follow St. Gelasius’ logic to arrive at that conclusion nonetheless: if the Apostolic See is, by divine right, subject to the judgment of absolutely no other ecclesiastical authority, then how could she enforce heresy on the Church without compromising ecclesial indefectibility? After all, if everyone had to embrace heresy to remain in communion with the divinely instituted head of the Church, then the faithful would be in a morally impossible scenario: schism or heresy. However, we know that morally impossible scenarios are impossible, and thus something like Vatican I’s teaching on papal infallibility appears as the logical endpoint of this papal system. 

A.D. 498-506. St. Avitus of Vienne, letter in defense of St. Symmachus.

What license for accusation against the headship of the Universal Church ought to be allowed? If the Pope of the City be put in question, not a single Bishop, but the Episcopate itself, will appear to be in danger. He who rules the Lord’s fold will render an account how he administers the care of the lambs entrusted to him; but it belongs not to the flock to alarm its own shepherd but to the Judge [God]… It is not easy to understand on what ground or by what law a superior is judged by his inferiors… Love not less in your Church the Chair of Peter, than in your city the metropolis of the World.

Mansi 8.293, qtd. in Ybarra, p. 425.

According to St. Avitus, because the pope “rules the Lord’s fold” by divine appointment, his standing affects the standing of the “Episcopate itself.” If the pope falls, the entire Church falls with him. This is why, he reasons, it belongs to God alone to judge the pope, for there is absolutely no “ground” or “law” by which “a superior is judged by his inferiors.” Although we don’t see an explicit affirmation of papal infallibility here, it’s not hard to see how such a conclusion can be derived. If the pope fell into heresy, then the entire Episcopate would have to fall with him since, by divine law, they’re bound to submit to him as their superior. However, since it would be impossible for the entire Episcopate to fall into heresy, it must be impossible for its head to fall into heresy as well, which would entail something like Vatican I’s teaching on papal infallibility.

A.D. 498-506. St. Ennodius of Milan, letter in defense of St. Symmachus.

God perchance has willed to terminate the causes of other men by means of men; but the Prelate of that See [Rome] He hath reserved, without question, to His own judgment. It is His will that the successors of the blessed Apostle Peter should owe their innocence to Heaven alone, and should manifest a pure conscience to the inquisition of the most severe judge. Do you answer, such will be the condition of all souls in that scrutiny? I retort, that to one was said, “Thou art Peter,” etc. And again, that by the voice of the Holy Pontiffs, the dignity of his See has been made venerable in the whole world, since all the faithful everywhere are submitted to it, and it is marked out as the head of the whole body.

Mansi 8.284, qtd. in Ybarra, p. 426.

Like Ss. Gelasius and Avitus, St. Ennodius also affirms the principle that, “The first See is judged by no one.” Notice that, like his contemporaries, the fact that there’s no higher ecclesiastical court than Rome is not a post-apostolic canonical construct, rather it’s because of the fact “that to one was said, ‘Thou art Peter…’” In St. Ennodius’ mind, when Jesus Christ stood before St. Peter at Caesarea Philipi and appointed him as the rock foundation of the Catholic Church, what He was actually doing is creating the office of the papacy, which, for this very reason, is subject to the judgment of none but Christ Himself. Although, once again, papal infallibility isn’t the primary focus of this teaching, it nonetheless logically follows from it. This is because, if our Lord Himself appointed the pope, the successor of Peter, as the highest authority in the Church, subject to the judgment of absolutely no other ecclesiastical authority, and instead having “the faithful everywhere… submitted” to him, then how could it be possible for him to enforce heresy? If he ever did require those subject to him to embrace heresy, then surely it would be justified to break communion with the pope, as it’s never justified to commit a sin like heresy, ever. However, since the pope is the one who Jesus Christ Himself commands “the faithful everywhere” to submit to as their lawful head, then you would have to pick your poison, schism or heresy. Since this moral scenario is impossible, St. Ennodius would surely agree with St. Gelasius that papal heresy is “something God would never allow to happen.”

A.D. 519. The Libellus of Pope St. Hormisdas, whose acceptance was the condition upon which the 6th c. Eastern churches re-entered Roman communion.

[Our] first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, etc.” [Matt 16:18]. These [words] which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain… We condemn, too, and anathematize Acacius, formerly bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Apostolic See, their confederate and follower, or those who remained in the society of their communion, because Acacius justly merited a sentence in condemnation like theirs in whose communion he mingled. No less do we condemn Peter of Antioch with his followers, and the followers of all mentioned above… Moreover, we accept and approve all the letters of blessed Leo the Pope, which he wrote regarding the Christian religion, just as we said before, following the Apostolic See in all things, and extolling all its ordinances. And, therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true and the perfect solidity of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. But if I shall attempt in any way to deviate from my profession, I confess that I am a confederate in my opinion with those whom I have condemned. However, I have with my own hand signed this profession of mine, and to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the City of Rome, I have directed it.

Denzinger and Rahner, eds., The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 73-74, qtd. in Ybarra. p. 397.

The first thing to keep in mind when reading this is the historical context. Remember that, as documented above, the Apostolic See had been loudly proclaiming her own divine headship over the Church since at least the 4th century, a belief that, as has been argued, logically collapses to something like Vatican I’s teaching on papal infallibility. It is in this papalist Roman Church that the Libellus of Pope St. Hormisdas declares, “the true and the perfect solidity of the Christian religion” has always remained. Already, the fact that the entire Eastern Episcopate of the 6th century agreed with this statement lends itself to the acceptance of Vatican I’s claims in the first millennium. How could everyone in the 6th century say that Rome was a shining beacon of orthodoxy for her entire history, if, since the very first moment she opened her mouth on her own authority, she had fallen into the papalist heresy that continues to justify the East-West schism to this day? These are the same bishops who dug Theodore of Mopsuestia and Origen of Alexandria out of their graves to anathematize as heretics, so wouldn’t it be reasonable to suppose that, if they detected even a hint of heresy in the Roman Church, they would have made this known? 

Instead, not only did the Eastern bishops fully affirm the doctrinal purity of Rome, but they also agreed with Rome’s own explanation of why she is doctrinally inerrant. According to St. Hormisdas and the Eastern bishops who reconciled with him, when our Lord stood before Simon Peter and declared him to be the rock of His Church, this was to ensure that “in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion” would “always” be “preserved without stain.” Indeed, the “[words] which were spoken” by Jesus to St. Peter are continiously “proved” by the “effect” of the Roman Church never falling into heresy. Perfectly in line with everything we’ve seen from Rome thus far, Pope St. Hormisdas and the Eastern bishops clearly believed that, because of Christ’s commission to blessed Peter, which is inherited by his successors the Roman Pontiffs, the Apostolic See would never teach heresy. It logically follows from this that, if the pope makes a binding decree on the entire Church, making it a condition of communion with his own See, it cannot lead the faithful astray, otherwise Rome would become heretical and Christ’s promise to St. Peter would be void.

A.D. 580-662. St. Maximus the Confessor.

“These confines of the inhabited world, and those throughout the world who confess the Lord in a pious and orthodox manner, look straight to the most holy Church of Rome, towards her confession and faith, as to a sun of perennial light, receiving from her the bright splendor of the holy teachings of the fathers, as they were explained piously and in all purity by the six holy councils [the five ecumenical councils, plus the Lateran Council], which were inspired and dictated by God in proclaiming very clearly the Symbol of Faith. For ever since the Word of God condescended to us and became man, all the Churches of Christians everywhere have held, and hold the great Church there as their sole basis and foundation, because, according to the very promises of the Lord, the gates of hell have never prevailed over her, but rather she has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession; she opens the genuine and only piety to those who approach her piously, but closes every heretical mouth that speaks injustice.”

PG 91:137-40, qtd. in Butler and Collorafi, pp. 352-353.

It’s not surprising that, just a few decades after the Eastern Episcopate accepted Pope St. Hormisdas’ teachings on the papacy, we would begin to see Eastern Saints affirming the same. This is especially true for St. Maximus, who was a personal friend of Pope St. Martin I. According to the Confessor, ever since our Lord stood on earth in the first century, “all the Churches of Christians everywhere have held” Rome to be the “sole basis and foundation” of their faith. Pause there. It simply cannot be denied that, well before the 6th century, Rome had been claiming divine headship over the Church and doctrinal infallibility for herself. Not only were these claims not quiet and obscure, but they were loudly proclaimed precisely in those pivotal moments when the East and West came together to announce the true faith, such as at the Third Ecumenical Council and the signing of St. Hormisdas’ Libellus. Being the Latin speaker he was, Maximus himself was certainly not ignorant of these facts. Thus, to claim that this papalist Roman Church had always been the foundation of the Catholic faith throughout all of history, is to already fully consent to the papal claims as they would theologically progress at Vatican I. 

Yet Maximus goes even further than this. Maximus locates the rationale for Rome’s doctrinal purity not in historical accident, but rather in Jesus’ promise to St. Peter that he would have “the keys of the orthodox faith and confession,” and that “the gates of hell” would never prevail against him. This is exactly what Pope St. Simplicius taught in the 5th century, and what Pope St. Hormisdas taught just a few decades before Maximus’ time. As such, it really isn’t a mystery where the Confessor was getting these ideas from. St. Maximus fully agreed with Rome’s traditional claim that, because the pope is the divinely instituted head of the Church, he will never teach heresy. Indeed, it doesn’t take an ultramontane theologian to see how we get from Maximus’ claims to Vatican I’s. If it really is true that, because of Jesus’ promise to St. Peter, the Church of Rome will always uphold the true faith, then how could it be conceivable for the pope to enforce heresy on the faithful? How could the acceptance of heresy ever be a condition for communion with the Roman Church, if, by divine promise, the Roman Church will never teach heresy? If one could figure out a way to square that circle without Vatican I, I’d be all ears, but I don’t see how that’s possible.

A.D. 649. St. Stephen of Dor’s profession of faith at the Lateran Synod.

So that we might “fly away” and announce these things to the See that rules and presides over all others (I mean your sovereign and supreme See [in Rome]), in quest of healing for the wound inflicted. It has been accustomed to perform this authoritatively from the first and from of old, on the basis of its apostolic and canonical authority, for the reason, evidently, that the truly great Peter, head of the apostles, was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted, alone out of all, with “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” for both opening them deservedly to those who believe and shutting them justly to those who do not believe in the gospel of grace, but also because he was the first to be entrusted with shepherding the sheep of the whole catholic church. As the text runs, “Peter, do you love me? Shepherd my sheep.” And again, because he possessed more than all others, in an exceptional and unique way, firm and unshakable faith in our Lord, [he was deemed worthy] to turn and strengthen his comrades and spiritual brethren when they were wavering, since providentially he had been adorned by God who became incarnate for our sake with power and priestly authority over them all.

St. Stephen of Dor, qtd. in Fr. Richard Price, The Acts of the Council of Lateran 649, pp. 143-44.

Like St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Stephen of Dor was also present at the Lateran synod of 649. His witness is especially important because he wasn’t just some random monk, rather St. Stephen was the legate of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, meaning he was quite literally commissioned to speak on behalf of the 7th century Jerusalem Church. Because of this, there are naturally many non-Catholic apologists who would like to read St. Stephen’s praises of Rome here as mere “Byzantine flattery.” The Byzantines were indeed known for speaking in very flowery and exalted language when it suited their interests, so perhaps St. Stephen was just lying in an attempt to score theological points. He would have to be lying, after all, given how unlikely it is that St. Stephen was unfamiliar with the papal claims made by the Pontiffs cited above; he certainly would have known how his words would have been understood by the 7th century Roman Church. However, this argument utterly fails when it’s realized that St. Stephen is not so much praising the Roman See for being orthodox, as much as he’s simply exegeting the New Testament. Like St. Maximus, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem’s legate understood that our Lord’s promises in Matthew 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17 apply to St. Peter’s Roman successor in a unique way. 

According to St. Stephen, Rome’s primacy over the universal Church is not merely a “canonical” construction, though it is attested to by the canons and can be given concrete applications by them (as it is today in the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law). Rather, the papacy is also an “apostolic” institution, being “authoritatively from the first and from of old.” What does St. Stephen believe is the “apostolic” origin of the papacy? This is where he relies on Scripture. The only Church that “rules and presides over all others” is the Apostolic See of Rome, “for the reason, evidently, that the truly great Peter, head of the apostles, was deemed worthy not only to be entrusted, alone out of all, with ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’… but also because he was the first to be entrusted with shepherding the sheep of the whole catholic church.” The kind of papal primacy being spoken of here didn’t originate from a conciliar agreement reached out of respect for Rome’s Petrine and Pauline heritage, rather it originated from our Lord’s commissions to St. Peter at Caesarea Philippi and the Sea of Tiberias. This is in perfect conformity with all of the witnesses cited above: St. Peter alone was chosen to be the singular head of the whole Apostolic College, and because of this, the Roman Pontiff alone is the singular head of the whole Catholic Church. Just as the promises made to St. Peter apply to him “alone” out of the Apostles, “in an exceptional and unique way,” so too, in St. Stephen’s mind, do the Petrine promises apply to the pope alone out of all the other bishops, since he is the only successor of Peter in the absolute sense. The Roman See is thus supreme not because of historical or canonical accident, but rather by divine right.

As in many of the cases above, although this isn’t an explicit affirmation of papal infallibility, it’s impossible to avoid that conclusion. If the pope’s headship over the universal Church began when Jesus stood before St. Peter in the 1st century, and He intended that ministry to last until the end of time, “the gates of hell shall not prevail,” then how could a pope ever remove the Apostolic See from Catholic communion by enforcing heresy? If papal primacy was only a canonical construct, created at a synod like Sardica, then maybe one could conceive of that primacy being moved from See to See based on historical circumstances. However, if papal primacy is of divine origin, and belongs to the pope not because all of the patriarchs held a vote about who it should belong to, but because he is St. Peter’s direct and absolute successor, then how could it ever be moved to a different See? How could a new successor of Peter be created ex nihilo? It wouldn’t make any sense. Thus, if St. Sophronius of Jerusalem’s legate truly represented the mind of the 7th century Jerusalem Church, then there’s no doubt that Eastern Christians at that time would have said “yes and amen” to the papal claims made at Vatican I.

A.D. 680-681. The letter of Pope St. Agatho, accepted by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace. For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all.

Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680-681), “The Letter of Pope Agatho,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 14, eds. Phillip Shaff and Henry Wace trans. Henry Percival, for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm.  

Pope St. Agatho changes absolutely nothing about the papal claims of his predecessors. According to the Pontiff, whose teachings were fully ratified by the Sixth Ecumenical Council,¹ when our Lord spoke to St. Peter saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not” (Lk 22:31), what He was doing was ensuring that all “the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness,” i.e. the popes of Rome, would not fall into heresy. This is why, St. Agatho reasons, “the Apostolic Church of Christ,” which we know is Rome since its “founders” are “the princes of the Apostles of Christ,” Peter and Paul, “remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself.” It really doesn’t get any more explicit than this. Because of Jesus’ promise to St. Peter that his faith would not fail, and that he would strengthen his brothers, this is why the Church of Rome “has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition,” and never will, “unto the end.” Once again, it doesn’t take a 19th century Catholic theologian to derive Vatican I’s teaching on papal infallibility from this. If the personal infallibility of St. Peter’s faith is the very means by which the Roman Church is protected from error, until the end of time, then how could it ever be possible for a pope to dogmatically bind heresy? It wouldn’t make any sense, meaning that Vatican I logically follows. The fact that the Eastern bishops at Constantinople III not only didn’t object to this teaching, but embraced it with the famous words, “Peter has spoken through Agatho,” demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the claims that would eventually be made at Vatican I were fully welcomed in the 7th century Catholic Church. 

A.D. 787. The letter of Pope Hadrian I, accepted by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun, and the sacred and venerable images be by your means erected again in those parts, as by the lord, the Emperor Constantine of pious memory, and the blessed Helen, who promulgated the orthodox Faith, and exalted the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine, and another Helen, through whom at the beginning the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church derived strength, and like whom your own imperial fame is spread abroad by triumphs, so as to be brilliant and deeply fixed in the whole world. But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth, be often your protector, and trample all barbarous nations under your feet, and everywhere make you conquerors. For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him. He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded. A blessed reward followed that blessed confession, by the preaching of which the holy universal Church was illumined, and from it the other Churches of God have derived the proofs of Faith. For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he [Peter] received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors.

Second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787), “Session 2,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 14, eds. Phillip Shaff and Henry Wace trans. Henry Percival, for New Advent by Kevin Knight, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3819.htm. 

This is more of the same. According to Pope Hadrian I, whose letter was accepted with joy by the Seventh Ecumenical Council,² because “blessed Peter himself” was the first bishop of the Apostolic See, he “left the chiefship of his Apostolate” to his successors, the popes, who will “sit in his most holy seat forever.” Although slightly less explicit than St. Agatho’s teaching on papal infallibility, the doctrine nonetheless follows. How will the Roman Pontiff remain the divinely instituted head of the Catholic Church until the end of time, if, by commanding heresy, he could sever the Apostolic See from the fellowship of the Church? If one wishes to square that circle in a way that denies the claims of Vatican I, they’re more than welcome to try, but I fail to see how it would ever convince an objective mind. Also remember, Pope Hadrian was the head of the very Church of Rome that the Encyclical of Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 refers to as, “the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome… the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”³ What would it mean to say that “the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” was steeped in the heresy of papalism centuries before the East-West schism? I’ll let the reader judge.

A.D. 750-825. Theodore Abu Qurrah, East Syrian defender of Nicaea II.

You should understand that the head of the apostles was St. Peter, he to whom Christ said, “You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.” After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberias, “Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams, and ewes.” In another passage, he said to him, “Simon, Satan will ask to sift you wheat, and I prayed that you not lase your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.” Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ's words, “I prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them,” we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, “I am with you always, until the end of the age,” he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, “Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost,” he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat [the Popes]. Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself , this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles' death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean [him] by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles—Paul of Samosata, Arius.. Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, then after him the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly "the gates of Hell," which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.

C. Bacha. Un traite des Oeuvres Arabes de Theodore Abou-Kurra. Paris, 1905, 34 sq., qtd. in Butler and Collorafi, pp. 575-576

This is perhaps the most explicit and systematic teaching on papal infallibility in the history of the first millennium Church. It largely speaks for itself. Because of Christ’s promises to St. Peter, the Roman Church will remain free from heresy “so long as this present age lasts.” According to Theodore Abu Qurrah, it was not only the Apostle Peter whom our Lord promised the gift of never-failing faith, rather “the holders of his seat [the Popes],” were also the intended recipients of this doctrinal infallibility. It’s worth noting that it’s almost unthinkable that Abu Qurrah, an Eastern theologian of the 8th century, came up with these teachings himself. The fact that he cites the very same texts appealed to by Pope St. Leo (whose Christological works Theodore was familiar with), Pope. St. Simplicius, Pope St. Gelasius, Pope St. Agatho, and Pope Hadrian, and comes to the same conclusion about the papacy as these Pontiffs, demonstrates the harmony between East and West on this issue. The Eastern bishops of Theodore’s era did not take the papal claims as empty honorifics, rather they took them just as seriously as the Roman Church did, a theological trajectory that only ends in one place: Vatican I.

A.D. 759-826. St. Theodore the Studite, letter to Pope Paschal I.

[The iconoclasts] have separated themselves from the body of Christ, and from the chief throne in which Christ placed the keys of faith: against which the gates of hell, namely the mouths of heretics, have not prevailed up to now, nor shall they ever prevail, according to the promise of him who does not lie. Therefore let the most blessed and apostolic [Pope] Paschal, who is worthy of his name, rejoice, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.

PG 99:1281, qtd. in Collorafi and Butler, p. 389.

Given the papal claims made by Pope Hadrian at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, it’s not surprising that one of that Council’s greatest defenders, St. Theodore the Studite, would fully embrace them. According to the Studite, because “Christ placed the keys of faith” in “the chief throne,” i.e. the Roman See, this is why “the gates of hell, namely the mouths of heretics, have not prevailed up to now, nor shall they ever prevail, according to the promise of him who does not lie.” Because of Jesus’ divine promise to St. Peter, which is forever “fulfilled” by the popes of Rome, the mouths of heretics will never prevail against the Church. Once again, one is free to try and explain that in a way that contradicts Vatican I, but it is almost certainly doomed to fail. If the pope could dogmatically bind heresy on the Church, then St. Theodore’s claim here would be false, plain and simple. As such, unless one would like to say that the Studite was lying about what he believed, there’s no doubt that he would have said “yes and amen” to Pastor Aeternus.

1. For a detailed discussion of the different translations of St. Agatho’s letter and their proper interpretation, see Erick Ybarra’s video, “Pope St. Agatho's Tome and the 6th Ecumenical Council: A Response to Craig Truglia.”

2. See Erick Ybarra’s article, “Comparing the Greek and Latin Texts of Pope Hadrian’s Letters Read Aloud at Nicaea 2: Did the Greek Text reject Papal Supremacy and Infallibility?.”

3. Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, “to the Easterns,” 5, xii.