Defending the Faith — Session 20
The Church Christ Founded, the Authority of St Peter, and the Fullness of Apostolic Faith
Opening Prayer
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Lord Jesus Christ,
You are the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
You founded Your Church upon the Apostles and promised to remain with her until the end of time.
Open our minds to understand the faith You have revealed.
Help us to recognise the truth preserved and taught by Your Church.
Give us humility when we study difficult questions, charity towards those who disagree with us, and courage to follow the truth wherever it leads.
Through the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St Peter and St Paul, keep us faithful to Your Gospel and united in the Church You established.
Amen.
Introduction
Throughout this series, we have been asking some of the important questions which Catholics are often asked.
Why be Catholic?
Did Jesus really found the Church?
Is the Bible enough?
Who has authority in the Church?
Why do we believe that Christ gave His Church the authority to teach, govern and administer the Sacraments?
We have seen that Catholicism is not simply one way of practising Christianity among many equally valid possibilities.
The Catholic Church claims to be the Church founded by Jesus Christ, preserving the fullness of His teaching, the Sacraments He instituted, and the apostolic authority which He entrusted to His Church.
But this raises another important question.
Why should someone become Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox?
This is a particularly serious question because Eastern Orthodoxy has much more in common with Catholicism than many people realise.
The Orthodox Churches possess ancient liturgies, bishops who stand in apostolic succession, valid Sacraments, devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the veneration of saints, and a rich tradition of prayer and theology.
They believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
They honour Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
They believe that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, that He died for our sins, and that He rose bodily from the dead.
They preserve the teaching of the great early ecumenical councils.
Indeed, someone attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy may be struck by its reverence, beauty, incense, icons, chanting and solemn celebration of the sacred mysteries.
All these things can be genuinely impressive.
So why not simply become Orthodox?
Is the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy merely a question of culture, language or religious ceremony?
Is it really necessary to be in communion with the Pope?
Did the early Christians recognise the authority of Rome?
And has the Catholic Church changed the faith by defining doctrines which the Orthodox Churches do not accept?
These questions deserve serious answers.
We must begin by recognising something important.
The Catholic Church does not teach that Eastern Orthodox Christianity is false in everything it believes.
On the contrary, the Church recognises that the Orthodox Churches possess genuine apostolic Christianity, including true Sacraments and a valid priesthood.
But the Catholic Church also teaches that the fullness of the Church established by Christ includes something which is absent from present Eastern Orthodox communion.
That is full visible communion with the successor of St Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
This is the central issue.
If Jesus Christ established the authority of Peter as a permanent office within His Church, and if that office continues in the bishops of Rome, then communion with the Pope is not merely an optional arrangement.
It belongs to the Church as Christ intended her to exist.
To understand this properly, we must begin with Jesus Christ Himself.
1. Jesus Christ Founded One Church
The first question is not whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy has the more beautiful liturgy.
It is not which tradition has the most impressive monasteries.
Nor is it which Church appears to have changed least in its outward customs.
The first question is:
What kind of Church did Jesus Christ actually establish?
Our Lord did not simply preach a message and leave everyone to organise themselves independently.
He chose twelve Apostles.
He instructed them in His teaching.
He gave them authority to forgive sins, celebrate the Eucharist, preach the Gospel, baptise and govern His people.
Before His Ascension, He commanded them to make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe everything He had commanded.
He also promised that He would remain with His Church until the end of the world.
We find this in Matthew 28:18–20.
In John 17, Our Lord prays that His disciples may be one.
In Ephesians 4:4–5, St Paul teaches that there is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith and one baptism.
And in 1 Timothy 3:15, the Church is described as the pillar and ground of the truth.
These passages establish something fundamental.
Christianity is not simply a collection of individuals who happen to believe similar things about Jesus.
Christ established a visible Church with a common faith, common sacramental life and genuine spiritual authority.
That Church must remain faithful to the teaching of the Apostles.
It must also continue the mission which Christ entrusted to them.
And it must remain one.
This unity is not merely an invisible feeling of fellowship between Christians who disagree about important doctrines.
Our Lord established a Church in which His people would be united in faith, worship and ecclesiastical communion.
The Catholic Church teaches that this unity includes the bishops who succeed the Apostles and the Bishop of Rome who succeeds St Peter.
Eastern Orthodoxy also believes in one visible, apostolic Church governed by bishops.
The disagreement is therefore not about whether the Church should possess bishops, Sacraments or apostolic authority.
The disagreement concerns the place of the Bishop of Rome within that Church.
And to understand that, we must look at St Peter.
2. What Authority Did Jesus Give to St Peter?
The Catholic doctrine of the papacy does not begin with medieval Popes.
It begins with the words of Jesus Christ recorded in Sacred Scripture.
Three passages are particularly important.
Matthew 16:18–19 — Peter, the Rock and the Keys
At Caesarea Philippi, Our Lord asks His disciples who they believe Him to be.
Simon Peter answers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Our Lord then tells Simon that this truth has been revealed to him by the Father.
He gives him the name Peter and declares that He will build His Church upon this rock.
He also promises Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind and loose.
Why is this important?
First, Our Lord addresses Peter personally.
He does not merely tell all the Apostles that they have made a good confession of faith.
He gives Simon a particular name and a particular promise.
The name Peter means rock.
In the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus, the connection between Peter and the rock is particularly clear.
Secondly, Our Lord speaks about the keys of the Kingdom.
In Sacred Scripture, keys are symbols of authority.
Isaiah 22:20–22 describes the appointment of a royal steward who receives the key of the house of David.
The steward does not replace the king.
He exercises authority entrusted to him by the king.
Catholic theology sees a significant connection between this Old Testament office and the keys promised to Peter.
Christ is the eternal King.
Peter receives authority to serve within His Kingdom.
Thirdly, Peter is given the power of binding and loosing.
This concerns real authority within the Church.
It cannot reasonably be reduced to a purely honorary title.
An Orthodox Christian may respond that the rock is Peter’s confession of faith rather than Peter himself.
But these two things are not opposed.
Peter receives his mission precisely because he confesses the truth revealed by the Father.
The Catholic understanding is that Christ establishes Peter as a visible foundation of ecclesiastical unity because of his divinely given confession of faith.
Christ remains the supreme foundation and Head of His Church.
Peter exercises an authority received entirely from Christ.
Luke 22:31–32 — Strengthen Your Brethren
At the Last Supper, Our Lord warns that Satan has sought to test the Apostles.
Christ then addresses Peter personally and tells him that He has prayed for him.
He gives Peter a particular responsibility:
“Confirm thy brethren.”
Why does Our Lord single Peter out?
All the Apostles need faith.
All are called to remain faithful.
Yet Christ gives Peter a particular duty to strengthen the others.
The Catholic Church sees in these words the foundation of Peter’s responsibility for the unity and firmness of the Church’s faith.
Peter himself would soon deny Christ.
He was not a sinless man.
But his personal weakness did not cancel the mission entrusted to him.
The authority of the Church rests upon the power and promises of Christ, not upon the personal perfection of her ministers.
John 21:15–17 — Feed My Sheep
After His Resurrection, Jesus asks Peter three times whether he loves Him.
Peter had denied the Lord three times.
Now Christ gives him the opportunity to profess his love three times.
Our Lord then commands him to feed and tend His flock.
The sheep belong to Jesus.
They are not Peter’s personal possession.
But Peter is entrusted with pastoral responsibility for them.
This is an important distinction.
The Pope does not replace Jesus Christ.
He does not become another Saviour.
He is not the source of grace or Revelation.
He is the successor of the Apostle to whom Christ entrusted a particular responsibility for the unity, faith and pastoral government of His Church.
These three passages belong together.
In Matthew, Peter receives the keys.
In Luke, he is told to strengthen his brethren.
In John, he is commissioned to shepherd Christ’s flock.
Taken together, they provide the biblical foundation of the Catholic doctrine of Petrine primacy.
What About the Other Apostles?
We should immediately answer another objection.
Did Jesus give authority only to Peter?
Certainly not.
The other Apostles also received genuine authority.
In Matthew 18:18, Our Lord gives the power of binding and loosing to the Apostles collectively.
At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the Apostles and elders deliberate together.
The Church was never intended to be governed by Peter acting as though the other Apostles had no authority.
But there is a difference between saying that all the Apostles possess genuine authority and saying that none possesses a distinctive office.
Catholicism teaches both apostolic authority and Petrine primacy.
The other Apostles are true shepherds.
Peter has a particular responsibility among them.
This is the biblical pattern of unity within the apostolic college, with Peter possessing a special office entrusted by Christ.
3. Was Peter’s Authority Intended to Continue?
Here we reach one of the most important questions.
An Orthodox Christian may acknowledge that Peter possessed a special position among the Apostles.
But he may then say:
“Peter was an Apostle. That does not prove that every Bishop of Rome inherits his authority.”
This is a serious objection.
We must distinguish between Peter’s personal privileges and his continuing ecclesiastical office.
Peter was personally chosen by Christ.
He witnessed the Resurrection.
He was one of the foundation stones of the apostolic Church.
These privileges cannot simply be repeated.
A later Pope does not become another eyewitness of the Resurrection or receive new public Revelation.
But the Catholic Church teaches that Peter also received a responsibility intended for the continuing life of the Church.
Consider why Christ gave Peter this responsibility.
The Church would need to remain united.
Her bishops would need to preserve the apostolic faith.
Doctrinal disputes would arise.
Christians would need guidance and a visible principle of ecclesiastical communion.
These needs did not disappear when Peter died.
The Church was intended to continue until the end of the world.
If the Petrine office belongs to the permanent constitution of that Church, then its enduring responsibility must continue.
This is the Catholic conclusion.
But why does it continue in Rome?
The New Testament does not contain a verse explicitly declaring that all future bishops of Rome will be Peter’s successors.
Catholicism does not depend upon pretending that such a verse exists.
We must examine apostolic Tradition and the historical life of the early Church.
Peter exercised his final ministry in Rome and suffered martyrdom there.
The Church of Rome was also associated with the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul.
From the earliest Christian centuries, the Roman Church possessed a distinctive position within the universal Church.
The Catholic claim is that this position was not merely a consequence of Rome being an important city.
It was connected with the apostolic ministry and martyrdom of St Peter.
And this brings us to the witness of the early Fathers.
4. What Did the Early Christians Believe About Rome?
A common Orthodox objection is that the papacy, as Catholics understand it, did not exist in the early Church.
We must approach this question carefully.
It would be historically inaccurate to imagine that the Church of the first century operated exactly like the Catholic Church of the twenty-first century.
The Church’s administrative structures developed.
The organisation of patriarchates developed.
The manner in which the Pope exercised his authority also developed.
But development in the exercise of an office does not necessarily mean that the office itself was invented later.
The important question is whether the essential principle of Roman primacy can be recognised within the ancient Church.
There are several important witnesses.
St Clement of Rome — First Century
Towards the end of the first century, a dispute arose within the Church at Corinth.
Certain presbyters had been removed from their positions.
The Church of Rome intervened through a substantial letter, traditionally associated with St Clement.
This is the famous First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
Why is it significant?
Corinth was not a suburb of Rome.
It was a Christian community in another part of the Roman Empire.
Yet the Church of Rome intervened in its internal affairs.
The letter called for repentance, order and the restoration of peace.
In chapters 59 and 63, the Roman Church spoke seriously about obedience to its admonition.
It did not write as though the matter were of no concern to Rome.
Now, this document does not contain the complete definition of papal jurisdiction which would later be given by Vatican I.
We should not claim that it does.
But it does provide very early evidence of the Roman Church taking responsibility for ecclesiastical order beyond its own local community.
This is important because it comes from the first generation after the Apostles.
St Ignatius of Antioch — Early Second Century
St Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch who was taken to Rome to suffer martyrdom.
During his journey, he wrote letters to several Christian communities.
His letter to the Romans speaks of the Roman Church with exceptional honour.
He describes it as presiding in love.
The precise meaning of this phrase is debated.
It does not, by itself, establish the full Catholic doctrine of papal jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, it shows that Rome already enjoyed a distinctive position among the Churches.
It is another piece of evidence which contributes to the historical picture.
St Irenaeus of Lyons — Second Century
St Irenaeus provides particularly important testimony.
He was a bishop of Lyons, writing around AD 180.
He had strong connections with the Christian tradition of Asia Minor and was defending the true apostolic faith against heretical teachers.
How did he demonstrate where the authentic Christian faith could be found?
He appealed to the public succession of bishops in the Churches founded by the Apostles.
And he chose Rome as his principal example.
In Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 3, he traced the succession of Roman bishops from the apostolic age.
He argued that Rome preserved the faith handed down from the Apostles and occupied a position of outstanding pre-eminence among the Churches.
The traditional English translation of the passage speaks of the necessity for other Churches to agree with Rome because of her pre-eminent authority.
The exact meaning of the surviving Latin wording is disputed, and scholars differ concerning how much jurisdictional authority Irenaeus intended to express.
We should recognise that difficulty rather than ignore it.
But the central fact remains.
Irenaeus, writing well before the medieval period, treated Rome as a uniquely important public witness to the apostolic faith.
He did not simply tell Christians to believe whichever local teacher they preferred.
He directed attention to apostolic succession, and particularly to Rome.
That is a serious piece of evidence for the Catholic position.
St Optatus of Milevis — Fourth Century
St Optatus defended the unity of the Catholic Church against the Donatist schism.
In Against the Donatists, Book II, chapter 2, he appealed to the chair of Peter at Rome.
He treated communion with that apostolic chair as an important sign of the unity of the Church.
This is significant because his argument concerned the identity of the true Church.
For Optatus, the See of Peter was not merely an interesting historical detail.
It had real importance for Catholic unity.
The Council of Chalcedon — AD 451
One of the most famous early councils was the Council of Chalcedon.
It defended the truth that Jesus Christ is one divine Person possessing two natures, divine and human.
Pope St Leo the Great had written an important doctrinal letter, commonly called the Tome of Leo.
The council examined his teaching and recognised its agreement with the apostolic faith.
The bishops then acclaimed:
“Peter has spoken thus through Leo.”
This statement is remarkable.
The bishops recognised a connection between the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff and the authority of St Peter.
We should also recognise that the council examined Leo’s teaching in the light of Scripture and the earlier Fathers.
It did not simply abandon its own responsibility.
But the Catholic Church does not teach that bishops should stop examining doctrine.
She teaches that the successor of Peter has a distinctive responsibility for preserving the faith.
Chalcedon provides important evidence for that understanding.
Pope Hormisdas and the Eastern Church — AD 519
In the early sixth century, communion between Rome and Constantinople was restored after the Acacian schism.
The restoration involved acceptance of a doctrinal formula associated with Pope Hormisdas.
That formula appealed to Christ’s promise to Peter and linked the preservation of the true faith with the Apostolic See of Rome.
This is particularly significant because it was accepted by Eastern ecclesiastical authorities as part of the restoration of communion.
It demonstrates that strong Roman Petrine claims were not simply invented by medieval Western theologians.
They formed part of earlier discussions between East and West.
What Does This Evidence Prove?
No single passage from the early Fathers proves every detail of modern Catholic teaching about the papacy.
That would be an exaggerated claim.
But the evidence is cumulative.
From the first centuries, Rome possessed a distinctive position in the life of the Church.
Rome intervened beyond its own territory.
Rome was treated as an important witness to apostolic doctrine.
The succession of its bishops was connected with St Peter.
And its teaching and communion were recognised as possessing a special significance for the wider Church.
The Catholic interpretation is that these things reveal the continuing Petrine office established by Christ.
The Orthodox interpretation generally accepts a special Roman primacy in the ancient Church but disputes its jurisdictional extent and whether it supports the later Catholic definitions.
That is the real historical disagreement.
It is not a question of whether Rome had any special standing.
It clearly did.
The question is what sort of authority that standing involved.
5. Was the Pope Simply First Among Equals?
This is one of the central differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Eastern Orthodox Christians generally recognise that Rome held first place among the ancient patriarchal sees.
But they usually understand that primacy differently from Catholics.
The phrase first among equals is often used.
The idea is that the Bishop of Rome possessed a position of honour and certain responsibilities within the wider Church, without holding supreme jurisdiction over every other bishop.
Catholics believe that this understanding is incomplete.
Why?
Because the biblical evidence concerning Peter suggests something more than honorary precedence.
The keys signify authority.
The commission to strengthen his brethren signifies a distinctive responsibility.
The command to shepherd Christ’s flock signifies pastoral government.
And the historical evidence shows Rome exercising responsibilities that were not always limited to its own local jurisdiction.
But we must avoid another misunderstanding.
Catholics do not believe that the Pope is the only real bishop.
Every diocesan bishop is a successor of the Apostles.
Each possesses genuine pastoral authority in the Church entrusted to him.
The Pope’s primacy does not abolish the episcopate.
It exists to preserve the unity of the episcopate.
Think of the Apostles themselves.
Christ gave authority to all twelve.
Yet He gave Peter a particular office.
Catholicism sees this pattern continuing in the Church.
The bishops collectively succeed the apostolic college.
The Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter in his distinctive responsibility for universal unity.
The question is therefore not whether the Church should be governed by bishops together.
Catholicism says yes.
The question is whether the episcopal college possesses a permanent visible head established by Christ.
Catholicism also says yes.
And that is precisely what Orthodoxy disputes.
6. What Does the Catholic Church Actually Teach About the Pope?
Many objections to Catholicism arise from misunderstandings about papal authority.
It is sometimes imagined that Catholics believe the Pope can do anything he wishes, change any doctrine, or speak without the possibility of error.
That is not Catholic teaching.
The First Vatican Council defined two particularly important doctrines in 1870.
These concern papal primacy and papal infallibility.
The Primacy of the Pope
The council taught that the Roman Pontiff, as successor of St Peter, possesses supreme, full, ordinary and immediate authority over the universal Church.
These expressions need explanation.
Supreme means that no higher earthly ecclesiastical authority stands over the Pope in the government of the universal Church.
Full means that his authority is real, not merely symbolic or ceremonial.
Ordinary means that this authority belongs to his office. It is not something occasionally granted to him by the other bishops.
Immediate means that his authority extends directly throughout the Church, rather than existing only when a local bishop or patriarch gives him permission to act.
This is the Catholic doctrine.
It is not simply a matter of religious custom or personal loyalty.
Catholics believe that this office was established by Christ.
But the Pope is not free to replace the Gospel with his own ideas.
He is not above divine Revelation.
He is not authorised to contradict the faith received from the Apostles.
His office exists to guard and faithfully transmit that faith.
What Is Papal Infallibility?
Papal infallibility is perhaps the most misunderstood doctrine in this discussion.
It does not mean that the Pope is sinless.
It does not mean that he is always wise.
It does not mean that every decision he makes is correct.
It does not mean that every homily, interview or private theological opinion is infallible.
Papal infallibility concerns a particular exercise of his teaching office.
When the Pope, acting as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians, definitively defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he is preserved from error through the divine assistance promised to Peter.
This is commonly described as teaching ex cathedra.
The phrase means that the Pope is acting officially from the chair of his supreme teaching office.
A Pope can make mistakes in ordinary conversation.
He can make poor administrative decisions.
He can commit serious personal sins.
He can even express a mistaken theological opinion outside the conditions of an infallible definition.
None of these possibilities contradicts the doctrine of papal infallibility.
At the same time, teachings of the Pope which are not proposed infallibly are not therefore automatically unimportant or free to be dismissed. The Church also teaches that her authentic, non-definitive Magisterium deserves an appropriate religious submission of intellect and will.
The essential point is that Christ preserves His Church from being definitively bound to error in matters of revealed faith and morals.
The Pope exercises a particular responsibility within that protection.
Why Is This Authority Necessary?
Consider how important doctrinal disputes have been throughout Christian history.
Was Jesus truly God?
Was He truly man?
Does He possess both a divine and a human will?
Is the Holy Spirit truly God?
These were not minor disagreements about religious customs.
They concerned the very substance of Christianity.
The Church had to make authoritative judgements.
Catholicism teaches that Christ established a living teaching authority capable of preserving the apostolic faith and, when necessary, defining it definitively.
That authority belongs to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter.
The Pope’s office exists to serve the truth, not to create new revelations.
The Catholic Church therefore sees papal primacy and infallibility as gifts given for the protection of the whole Church.
7. But Were the Early Councils Not Governed by Bishops Together?
An Orthodox Christian may object:
“The early Church was governed through councils. The bishops met and decided matters together. They did not simply obey the Pope.”
There is an important truth in this objection.
The great ecumenical councils were genuinely conciliar.
The bishops examined Scripture.
They considered the teaching of the Fathers.
They debated theological questions.
They issued doctrinal definitions and disciplinary canons.
The Catholic Church fully recognises their authority.
But conciliar authority and Petrine authority are not necessarily opposed.
Consider the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
The Apostles and elders came together to consider whether Gentile converts were required to observe the Mosaic Law.
Peter spoke.
The other Apostles and elders participated.
St James contributed to the council’s judgement.
A collective decision was then communicated to the Churches.
The Catholic Church understands this as an early example of the relationship between Petrine authority and conciliar government.
The Pope is not supposed to abolish the proper authority of bishops.
The bishops are not supposed to exist independently of the unity established through Peter.
The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed both truths in Lumen Gentium.
The bishops are true successors of the Apostles, possessing genuine authority.
The Roman Pontiff is the head of the episcopal college and possesses supreme authority over the universal Church.
These two elements belong together.
What About Canon 28 of Chalcedon?
An Orthodox Christian may point to Canon 28 of Chalcedon.
This canon gave Constantinople elevated privileges because it was the imperial city known as New Rome.
Does this not prove that ecclesiastical primacy depended upon political importance?
The canon certainly demonstrates that political and historical circumstances influenced the ordering of patriarchal sees.
Pope St Leo rejected the canon’s alteration of the traditional order, while accepting Chalcedon’s doctrinal teaching.
This dispute reveals a genuine difference between Eastern and Western understandings of ecclesiastical precedence.
The Catholic answer is that the rank of a patriarchal see and the divinely instituted primacy of Peter are not identical questions.
Constantinople’s rise may be explained partly by imperial importance.
But the Catholic claim concerning Rome rests fundamentally upon the office of Peter.
This does not make every historical dispute simple.
It does establish the distinction which must be examined.
8. What About Popes Who Have Been Wrong?
A serious Catholic apologetic must confront difficult historical examples.
It is no use pretending that every Pope was a saint or that every papal decision was beyond criticism.
Did St Paul Correct St Peter?
In Galatians 2:11–14, St Paul tells us that he opposed Peter at Antioch.
Peter’s conduct had given a misleading impression concerning relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Does this disprove papal authority?
No.
It demonstrates that Peter could behave wrongly and deserved correction.
Catholics have never been required to believe that Peter was personally perfect.
Papal infallibility does not mean that a Pope cannot sin or act inconsistently.
Nor does St Paul’s correction of Peter constitute evidence that Christ never gave Peter a distinctive office.
A person can possess genuine authority and still require correction when he acts wrongly.
What About Pope Honorius?
Pope Honorius I is a particularly serious historical case.
He became involved in the seventh-century controversy concerning the wills of Christ.
The Third Council of Constantinople, held in 680–681, condemned him in connection with the Monothelite heresy.
This condemnation really happened.
A Catholic should not deny it.
But the issue is whether Honorius exercised the infallible teaching office defined by Vatican I.
He did not issue a solemn definition binding the whole Church to the Monothelite error under the conditions required for papal infallibility.
His correspondence and failure to guard the faith adequately remain serious historical matters.
They do not demonstrate that the Church was definitively bound to heresy through an infallible papal definition.
There remains historical discussion concerning the exact nature of his personal doctrinal fault.
But the essential Catholic distinction is clear.
Papal infallibility is not the claim that every Pope will always defend the faith perfectly in every circumstance.
It is the claim that Christ protects His Church from definitive doctrinal error through the particular exercise of the teaching authority He established.
Did St Gregory the Great Reject Universal Papal Authority?
Pope St Gregory the Great criticised the title universal bishop.
Orthodox writers sometimes appeal to his criticism as evidence against the Catholic understanding of the papacy.
But Gregory was particularly concerned that such a title might deny or diminish the genuine episcopal dignity of other bishops.
He did not simply deny that the Roman See possessed a special authority.
His own correspondence contains substantial assertions of that authority.
The Catholic Church also rejects the idea that the Pope replaces every other bishop.
The Pope possesses primacy within the episcopal college.
He does not abolish the Church’s other shepherds.
What Should We Conclude?
These examples demonstrate why Catholic arguments must be precise.
We do not defend the papacy by pretending that every Pope was personally faultless.
We defend it by showing that Christ established a permanent office for the unity and preservation of His Church.
The sins and failings of those who hold an office do not, by themselves, disprove the office’s divine institution.
9. How Can the Church Decide What Christians Must Believe?
Here we encounter another important question.
Eastern Orthodoxy places great emphasis upon ecumenical councils, the witness of the Fathers, Sacred Tradition and the reception of the true faith by the Church.
These are serious and important principles.
The Catholic Church values them too.
The disagreement concerns the final exercise of universal doctrinal authority.
Suppose two groups of bishops disagree about an essential teaching.
Both appeal to Scripture.
Both cite the Fathers.
Both claim to preserve apostolic Tradition.
How is the disagreement definitively resolved?
The Orthodox answer places particular weight upon the Church’s conciliar life and the recognition or reception of authentic teaching by the whole Church.
This does not mean that Orthodox Churches possess no authority.
They have bishops, synods, patriarchs, canons and genuine traditions of doctrinal teaching.
But Catholicism raises a further question.
When those ecclesiastical authorities remain divided, who possesses the responsibility to give a judgement binding upon the entire Church?
The Catholic answer is that Christ established a universal Petrine office for precisely the preservation of unity in faith and communion.
An Example: The Council of Florence
In 1439, representatives of East and West reached a formal agreement at the Council of Florence.
The council addressed important doctrinal questions, including the procession of the Holy Spirit and the primacy of the Pope.
Yet the agreement was subsequently rejected by much of the Orthodox world.
Catholics regard the doctrinal definitions of Florence as authoritative.
Orthodox Christians generally reject the council as an authentic ecumenical expression of their faith.
This reveals the central problem.
How is the definitive authority of such a council established?
The Catholic answer includes the role of the Roman Pontiff.
Orthodoxy appeals to the faithful reception of authentic conciliar teaching within the Church.
The Catholic objection is that, without an acknowledged universal Petrine authority, a further dispute may arise about whether a council has truly been received.
The question can remain unsettled between the Churches themselves.
This is not proof that every Catholic doctrinal dispute is resolved quickly.
Nor does it mean that Orthodox Christians simply vote on doctrine.
Rather, it exposes a fundamental difference between the two understandings of ecclesiastical authority.
Catholicism possesses a defined universal teaching office.
Orthodoxy possesses conciliar structures but rejects the Catholic understanding of a universal Petrine jurisdiction.
The important question is which structure most faithfully continues the Church established by Christ.
10. The Filioque: Has the Catholic Church Changed the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity?
We now turn to one of the most famous doctrinal disputes.
The word Filioque is Latin for “and the Son”.
It concerns the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.
The Creed originally confessed by the Council of Constantinople in 381 states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The Western Church later added the words “and the Son” to its liturgical recitation of the Creed.
The Orthodox Churches object to this addition and to the theological understanding associated with it.
Does Catholicism therefore teach something contrary to the original faith?
We must distinguish carefully what the Catholic Church actually believes.
Does the Holy Spirit Proceed from Two Independent Sources?
No.
Catholicism does not teach that the Father and the Son are two separate gods or independent sources of the Holy Spirit.
The Council of Florence defined that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle and through one spiration.
What does that mean?
The Father is the eternal source without origin.
The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.
The Father communicates to the Son the fullness of the one divine nature, while remaining personally distinct as Father.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Son’s participation in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit is itself received from the Father.
There are not two separate divine powers producing the Holy Spirit.
The Father and the Son are one principle of the Spirit’s procession.
This preserves both the monarchy of the Father and the eternal communion of the divine Persons.
What Does Scripture Teach?
In John 15:26, Our Lord speaks of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father.
Catholics accept this completely.
But Scripture also teaches that the Spirit is intimately related to the Son.
In John 16:14–15, Our Lord explains that the Holy Spirit will receive from what belongs to the Son, and that all that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son.
In John 20:22, the risen Christ breathes upon the Apostles and communicates the Holy Spirit.
In Galatians 4:6, St Paul speaks of the Spirit of God’s Son.
These passages do not individually contain a complete explanation of eternal Trinitarian procession.
But they contribute to the theological foundation for the Catholic doctrine.
What Did the Fathers Teach?
The Western Fathers, especially St Augustine, developed the teaching concerning the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.
Eastern Fathers often spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son.
These expressions must be understood carefully.
Greek and Latin theological terms do not always convey precisely the same meaning.
The Greek word often used for the Spirit’s procession refers particularly to His origin from the Father.
The Latin word processio can have a broader meaning.
This difference contributed to misunderstandings between East and West.
The Catholic Church does not claim that every Eastern Father explicitly taught the complete later Latin formulation.
She maintains that the doctrine defined at Florence expresses faithfully the mystery revealed by God and handed down in Tradition.
Was the Filioque Added to the Creed?
Yes.
The original Creed of Constantinople did not contain the phrase.
Its use developed in the West over several centuries, and Rome eventually adopted it in the liturgical Creed.
This is a historical fact.
But we must distinguish the wording of a liturgical formula from the truth of the doctrine which it expresses.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Filioque is doctrinally true.
At the same time, Eastern Catholic Churches may profess the original Greek form of the Creed without adding those words.
This is not a denial of Catholic teaching.
It reflects the Church’s recognition of the legitimate Eastern theological and liturgical tradition.
The disagreement cannot be dismissed as entirely linguistic, because some Orthodox theologians reject aspects of the Catholic doctrinal definition itself.
But neither is it correct to say that Catholics believe in two independent origins of the Holy Spirit.
That is not the Catholic faith.
The real question is whether the teaching of Florence expresses the apostolic doctrine of the Trinity.
Catholicism maintains that it does.
11. Original Sin: Is the Catholic Teaching Different from the Orthodox?
Another common criticism concerns original sin.
It is sometimes claimed that Catholicism teaches that every human being is personally guilty of Adam’s individual sin.
That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
The Catechism explains that Adam and Eve committed a personal sin.
Through their fall, human nature lost the original holiness and justice which God had given mankind.
We inherit a wounded human nature.
We are subject to suffering, death, ignorance and the inclination towards sin.
But we do not personally commit Adam’s act.
The Catechism makes this distinction in paragraphs 404–405.
Original sin is inherited as a fallen condition, not committed as our own personal act.
Eastern Orthodoxy frequently emphasises the inheritance of mortality and corruption through Adam’s fall.
There is much common ground here.
Catholicism also teaches that humanity inherits the consequences of the Fall and requires the grace of Jesus Christ.
Differences remain concerning the precise theological description of original sin and the loss of original holiness.
But the Catholic doctrine should not be rejected on the basis of a mistaken claim that every infant is personally blameworthy for Adam’s decision.
The Church does not teach that.
She teaches that every human being needs redemption through Jesus Christ.
12. What About the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?
Eastern Orthodox Christians possess a profound devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
They honour her as the Theotokos, the Mother of God.
They believe in her perpetual virginity.
They celebrate her holiness and her unique place in God’s plan of salvation.
The Catholic Church shares these beliefs.
The disagreement concerns certain later dogmatic definitions and the authority by which they were made.
The Immaculate Conception
In 1854, Pope Pius IX defined that Mary was preserved from original sin from the first moment of her conception.
Does this mean that Mary did not need a Saviour?
No.
Mary was redeemed by Jesus Christ in a unique and perfect manner.
The grace which preserved her from original sin came entirely through the merits of her divine Son.
The Immaculate Conception therefore glorifies the saving power of Christ.
It does not make Mary independent of Him.
The biblical foundations include the angel’s greeting to Mary in Luke 1:28 and the Church’s understanding of Mary as the New Eve.
The Fathers frequently contrasted the disobedience of Eve with the obedience of Mary.
St Irenaeus is a particularly important witness to this ancient understanding.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Immaculate Conception is an authentic development of the faith concerning Mary’s unique holiness and her place in salvation history.
Orthodox Christians generally honour Mary’s extraordinary holiness but often object to the Latin doctrinal formulation and to its universal definition by the Pope.
The Assumption of Our Lady
The Catholic Church teaches that at the completion of her earthly life, the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
This was solemnly defined in 1950.
Eastern Orthodox Christians celebrate the Dormition of the Mother of God and traditionally honour her bodily glorification.
There is therefore profound common ground.
The disagreement concerns the precise dogmatic formulation and the authority to define it for the whole Church.
Once again, we return to the decisive question.
Did Christ establish a teaching authority capable of definitively proclaiming truths contained in apostolic Revelation?
If He did, the Church’s legitimate doctrinal definitions are not optional opinions.
They require the assent of faith.
13. Purgatory: Does Catholicism Teach Something Foreign to the Early Church?
Purgatory is another subject frequently raised in discussions with Orthodox Christians.
The Catholic Church teaches that those who die in God’s grace and friendship, but are not yet perfectly purified, undergo a final purification before entering heaven.
These souls are saved.
Purgatory is not a second chance for those who have definitively rejected God.
Nor is it an alternative to the saving work of Christ.
It is the application of Christ’s saving grace to those who still require purification.
Revelation 21:27 teaches that nothing unclean can enter the heavenly Jerusalem.
In 1 Corinthians 3:13–15, St Paul speaks of a testing by fire in which a person may suffer loss yet still be saved.
The immediate context concerns the testing of a person’s work, so the passage should not be treated as a complete description of Purgatory.
Nevertheless, it contributes to the biblical foundation of the doctrine.
In 2 Maccabees 12:43–46, prayers and offerings are made for the dead.
The early Church also prayed for the departed.
And Eastern Orthodox Christians continue to pray for the dead and offer the Divine Liturgy for them.
This is an important point of agreement.
Catholics do not believe that every popular image of Purgatory represents a defined doctrine.
The Church does not require belief that Purgatory involves ordinary material fire or that its duration is measured by earthly time.
She teaches the reality of final purification for those who die in God’s friendship but are not yet perfectly holy.
Eastern Orthodox theologians differ in how they explain the state of the departed and generally reject certain Latin formulations.
But the practice of praying for the dead is deeply rooted in both traditions.
The Catholic doctrine is a coherent expression of the need for holiness before entering the presence of God.
14. Marriage and Divorce: A Serious Difference
Some differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy have direct consequences for Christian living.
One of the most important concerns marriage.
Jesus Christ teaches in Matthew 19 that marriage belongs to God’s original plan.
He declares that what God has joined together must not be separated by man.
In Mark 10:11–12, Our Lord speaks very firmly against divorce followed by another marriage.
St Paul likewise teaches in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11 that separated spouses should remain unmarried or be reconciled.
Catholic doctrine therefore teaches that a valid, consummated sacramental marriage cannot be dissolved by any human authority.
Not even the Pope possesses the power to dissolve such a marriage.
This is not a disciplinary rule which the Church can simply abandon.
It belongs to the teaching of Christ.
The Church does recognise that spouses may need to separate in certain serious circumstances.
She also recognises that some apparent marriages were invalid from the beginning.
A declaration of nullity is not a Catholic divorce.
It is a judgement that a valid marriage was not established because one or more essential requirements were absent.
Eastern Orthodox practice is different.
Many Orthodox Churches permit a second or third marriage after divorce under certain conditions.
This is often explained through the principle of economia, a pastoral application of ecclesiastical discipline in response to human weakness and difficult circumstances.
Orthodox Christians defend this practice through their own interpretation of Scripture and ecclesiastical Tradition.
But the Catholic objection remains important.
If Christ has established a valid sacramental marriage as indissoluble, how can ecclesiastical authority permit another marriage while that bond continues?
Pastoral compassion is essential.
The Church must care for people who experience abandonment, abuse, betrayal or family breakdown.
But pastoral care cannot authorise what contradicts divine law.
Catholicism maintains that the indissolubility of a valid, consummated sacramental marriage is part of Christ’s teaching.
And the Church has no authority to overturn it.
This is not merely a dispute about administrative practice.
It concerns the authority of Christ’s own words.
15. Has the Catholic Church Added New Doctrines?
This is perhaps the broadest Orthodox objection.
Some Orthodox Christians argue that the Catholic Church has introduced doctrines which were not explicitly taught in the earliest centuries.
They may point to papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception or particular Western theological definitions.
The objection is that authentic Christianity should preserve the apostolic faith without adding later innovations.
Catholics agree with the essential principle.
The Church cannot invent new divine Revelation.
The faith was entrusted to the Apostles.
Public Revelation was completed in the apostolic age.
No Pope, council or theologian possesses the authority to create a new Gospel.
But we must distinguish between a new revelation and a more precise understanding of a truth already revealed.
How Doctrinal Development Works
Consider the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
Christians believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man.
But the precise theological language used to explain this truth was developed through the great Christological controversies.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 defined the Son as consubstantial with the Father.
The Council of Ephesus in 431 defended the unity of Christ’s Person and affirmed the title Mother of God.
The Council of Chalcedon in 451 taught that Christ is one divine Person in two natures.
The Third Council of Constantinople in 680–681 affirmed that Christ possesses both a divine will and a human will.
These definitions did not create a new Jesus Christ.
They clarified truths contained in apostolic Revelation.
The Church’s understanding became more precise as errors arose and required correction.
The Catholic Church understands authentic doctrinal development in this way.
A doctrine may be stated more clearly in a later century while preserving the truth handed down from the Apostles.
Of course, not every change can be justified simply by calling it development.
A genuine development must preserve the same faith.
It cannot contradict the deposit of Revelation.
The Catholic claim is that doctrines such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception are authentic developments of apostolic teaching.
Orthodoxy disputes that claim.
But the fact that a doctrine received its precise dogmatic formulation in a later century does not, by itself, demonstrate that it is false.
Otherwise, we would have to question the legitimacy of the great doctrinal definitions of the early councils.
The real question is whether a later definition preserves and clarifies the apostolic faith or introduces something contrary to it.
Catholicism maintains that her definitive teachings preserve that faith.
And she claims the authority, given by Christ, to judge such matters definitively.
16. Is Eastern Orthodox Worship More Ancient Than Catholic Worship?
Some people are drawn towards Orthodoxy because its worship seems more ancient and traditional.
The Divine Liturgy is often celebrated with great solemnity.
The churches are filled with icons.
The chanting, incense and ceremonial express a profound awareness of the holiness of God.
Catholics should recognise the beauty and spiritual riches of this tradition.
But we must avoid confusing Catholicism with the Latin liturgical tradition alone.
The Catholic Church contains both Western and Eastern traditions.
There are Eastern Catholic Churches which celebrate the Byzantine Divine Liturgy while remaining in full communion with the Pope.
They preserve their own traditions of iconography, chanting, fasting, married parish clergy, theological expression and spirituality.
These are not simply Latin Catholic communities with unusual ceremonies.
They are Catholic Churches possessing their own legitimate ecclesiastical and liturgical inheritance.
The Catholic Church recognises and protects this inheritance.
This is important because becoming Catholic does not mean that someone must reject the genuine riches of Eastern Christianity.
The Catholic Church embraces the legitimate traditions of East and West.
What About the Eastern Understanding of Salvation?
Eastern Christianity often speaks about theosis, or divinisation.
This means that through grace we are brought into participation in the divine life.
This is not opposed to Catholic doctrine.
The Catholic Church also teaches that through sanctifying grace we become adopted children of God and partakers of the divine nature.
We do not become God by nature.
We remain creatures.
But God truly shares His supernatural life with us through grace.
This is part of the common Catholic and Orthodox inheritance.
What About Married Priests?
The Eastern Catholic Churches preserve their own legitimate discipline concerning the ordination of married men.
The Latin Church ordinarily requires priestly celibacy, but this is an ecclesiastical discipline rather than a doctrine declaring that every priest must be unmarried by divine law.
Therefore, the existence of married priests in Eastern Orthodoxy does not constitute an argument against Catholicism.
The Catholic Church recognises the legitimacy of the ancient Eastern discipline.
What About Leavened Bread?
Eastern Christians traditionally use leavened bread for the Eucharist.
The Latin Church uses unleavened bread.
Both are valid forms of Eucharistic matter when properly used according to the Church’s sacramental requirements.
These differences concern legitimate liturgical traditions, not separate Christian faiths.
The essential question is not whether a Church has retained every ancient custom in exactly the same outward form.
The essential question is whether she preserves the faith, Sacraments and apostolic communion established by Christ.
A beautiful liturgy is a great treasure.
But liturgical beauty cannot, by itself, settle the question of ecclesiastical authority.
17. Did the Catholic Church Cause the Great Schism?
The division between East and West is often associated with the year 1054.
But the separation developed over a long period.
Political rivalry, disputes about ecclesiastical authority, differences of language, theological misunderstandings and genuine doctrinal disagreements all contributed.
The events of 1054 were important, but they did not create the division entirely from nothing.
The later sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade caused terrible suffering and made reconciliation even more difficult.
A Catholic should not attempt to justify every action of Western Christians during these centuries.
Wrongdoing remains wrongdoing.
The fact that someone belonged to the Catholic Church does not make every action he undertook right.
The same principle applies to Christians of every tradition.
But historical wrongdoing must be distinguished from the doctrinal question.
The sins of individual Catholics do not prove that Catholic doctrine is false.
The mistakes of Popes do not prove that Christ never established the Petrine office.
And the holiness of Orthodox Christians does not automatically establish that every Orthodox ecclesiological claim is correct.
The question remains:
Which Church preserves the fullness of the faith and ecclesiastical communion intended by Christ?
Catholicism teaches that the fullness of that communion includes unity with the successor of Peter.
The division is therefore a genuine wound in the visible unity of the Church.
18. Are Orthodox Sacraments Valid? Can Orthodox Christians Be Saved?
We should answer these questions very clearly.
Are Orthodox Sacraments Valid?
Yes.
The Catholic Church recognises that the Eastern Orthodox Churches possess true Sacraments.
They possess valid apostolic succession, priesthood and Eucharist.
When an Orthodox priest validly celebrates the Divine Liturgy, the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church does not regard it as a merely symbolic ceremony.
This is explicitly recognised by the Second Vatican Council in Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 15.
Are Orthodox Christians Really Christians?
Certainly.
They profess faith in Jesus Christ, share the sacramental life of the ancient Church and possess a profound spiritual and theological inheritance.
The Catholic Church recognises a deep, although imperfect, communion with them.
Can Orthodox Christians Be Saved?
Yes.
Salvation comes through Jesus Christ and His grace.
The Catholic Church recognises that the Holy Spirit works within the Eastern Orthodox Churches and that their true Sacraments are genuine means of grace.
A person born and raised in Orthodoxy is not automatically personally guilty of the historical division between East and West.
God judges each person with perfect justice and mercy.
But this does not make visible ecclesiastical unity unimportant.
The Catholic Church teaches that the fullness of the means of salvation subsists within her and that full communion with her belongs to the unity Christ established.
If someone becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, possessing the fullness of the faith and the authority He instituted, that person should respond faithfully to the truth he has recognised.
The existence of genuine grace outside full Catholic communion does not make the obligation to follow the truth irrelevant.
19. So Why Should Someone Become Catholic Rather Than Orthodox?
We can now bring the argument together.
The Catholic case is not based upon claiming that everything within Orthodoxy is wrong.
It is based upon a particular understanding of the Church established by Jesus Christ.
Christ founded one visible Church.
He entrusted genuine authority to the Apostles.
Among the Apostles, He gave St Peter a distinctive office.
He promised Peter the keys of the Kingdom.
He commanded him to strengthen his brethren.
He entrusted him with responsibility for His flock.
The Catholic Church teaches that this office was intended to continue in the Church until the end of time.
The early history of Christianity provides important evidence for Rome’s distinctive place within the apostolic Church.
The Church of Rome intervened in disputes beyond its own community.
The Fathers appealed to its apostolic succession and faith.
The great councils recognised the special significance of its doctrinal witness.
And later Catholic councils defined more precisely the nature of the Petrine office and the authority of its successor.
Eastern Orthodoxy accepts much of the apostolic and sacramental inheritance.
But it rejects the Catholic understanding of the universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
This is the decisive difference.
If the papacy is simply a human development which has no foundation in Christ’s institution, then the Catholic claim requires rejection.
But if the papacy is the continuation of the office which Christ established in Peter, then full communion with the Pope belongs to the constitution of the Church.
That is not merely a preference for one form of church government over another.
It concerns obedience to the will of Christ.
This is why the Catholic Church maintains that communion with Rome is essential to the fullness of visible Catholic unity.
The Catholic argument is therefore not that the Orthodox Churches have lost everything.
It is that they remain separated from an essential element of the full ecclesiastical communion established by Christ.
And that is why someone who recognises the truth of the Catholic Church’s claims should become Catholic.
20. How to Answer Common Questions
“The Orthodox Church is just as ancient as the Catholic Church. Why choose Rome?”
The Catholic Church recognises the apostolic origins and genuine antiquity of Eastern Orthodoxy.
The question is not simply which community is older.
It is which communion possesses the fullness of the faith and authority established by Christ.
Catholicism maintains that this fullness includes the permanent Petrine office exercised by the Bishop of Rome.
“Didn’t Jesus say that He Himself is the rock?”
Jesus Christ is the supreme foundation and Head of the Church.
But this does not prevent Him from giving Peter a genuine foundational role.
In Matthew 16, Christ gives Simon the name Peter, promises him the keys, and entrusts him with the authority of binding and loosing.
Peter’s authority is entirely dependent upon Christ.
It does not compete with Him.
“If Peter had authority, why does that mean the Pope has authority?”
The Catholic Church teaches that Peter’s special office was intended to continue because Christ established His Church for all generations.
The early Church connected the Roman See with Peter’s apostolic ministry and recognised Rome’s distinctive role in the preservation of faith and unity.
The doctrine of apostolic succession therefore includes the continuation of Peter’s enduring office in the bishops of Rome.
“Why did the early bishops hold councils if the Pope was in charge?”
Because bishops possess genuine apostolic authority.
The Catholic Church teaches that the episcopate and the Petrine office belong together.
The Pope does not replace ecumenical councils.
Nor do councils eliminate the authority entrusted to Peter.
The Church is both episcopal and Petrine.
“Didn’t some early bishops resist the Pope?”
Yes.
There were real disputes concerning Roman authority.
St Cyprian of Carthage, for example, disagreed with Pope Stephen over the treatment of baptism administered outside Catholic communion.
Such controversies demonstrate that the nature and exercise of Roman primacy were not always understood or accepted uniformly.
They do not, by themselves, establish that Christ gave Peter no enduring authority.
The Catholic case rests upon the whole biblical and historical evidence.
“Doesn’t Pope Honorius prove that Popes can teach heresy?”
Honorius was condemned in connection with the Monothelite controversy.
This is a serious historical fact.
But papal infallibility does not mean that every papal statement is infallible.
Honorius did not issue an ex cathedra definition binding the whole Church to the disputed error.
His case demonstrates that Popes can fail seriously.
It does not refute the carefully defined doctrine of papal infallibility.
“Why did Catholics add the Filioque to the Creed?”
The phrase was added gradually to the Western liturgical Creed.
The original Greek text did not contain it.
But the Catholic Church teaches that the doctrine it expresses is true.
She does not teach that the Holy Spirit has two independent divine sources.
She teaches that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle.
The dispute must be examined in the light of the actual Catholic doctrine rather than a mistaken explanation of it.
“Hasn’t the Catholic Church invented doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception?”
The Catholic Church distinguishes between inventing new Revelation and defining more precisely truths contained in apostolic Revelation.
The great early councils also used increasingly precise theological language to defend doctrines concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Catholicism maintains that later dogmatic definitions are authentic developments of the same apostolic faith.
They do not constitute new revelation.
“The Orthodox allow remarriage after divorce. Isn’t that more merciful?”
The Catholic Church must show genuine compassion towards those whose marriages have broken down.
But she also teaches that no human authority can dissolve a valid, consummated sacramental marriage.
The question is not whether mercy matters.
It is whether ecclesiastical authority can set aside the teaching of Christ concerning the permanence of marriage.
Catholicism maintains that it cannot.
“The Orthodox Divine Liturgy seems more traditional. Doesn’t that prove Orthodoxy is the true Church?”
No.
The Byzantine Divine Liturgy is an ancient and beautiful expression of Christian worship.
It is also celebrated by Eastern Catholics in full communion with Rome.
The Catholic Church embraces legitimate Eastern and Western traditions.
The truth of a Church’s doctrinal claims cannot be established solely by the beauty or antiquity of its liturgical ceremonies.
“Does becoming Catholic mean rejecting the Eastern Fathers?”
Certainly not.
The Eastern Fathers belong to the inheritance of the Catholic Church.
St Athanasius, St Basil the Great, St Gregory Nazianzen, St John Chrysostom, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Maximus the Confessor and St John Damascene are honoured within Catholic tradition.
Catholics are encouraged to study their teaching and receive the spiritual riches of Eastern Christianity.
The Catholic Church does not ask people to reject what is genuinely apostolic in the Eastern tradition.
She calls them to the fullness of communion in which those riches properly belong.
“Can a Catholic respect Orthodoxy while still believing that the Catholic Church is the true Church?”
Yes.
Respect for the genuine gifts preserved in Orthodoxy is entirely compatible with the Catholic conviction that the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church.
Charity does not require us to pretend that important doctrinal differences do not exist.
And fidelity to Catholic truth does not require us to deny the authentic Christian faith and sacramental life of Eastern Orthodox believers.
We should speak truthfully, fairly and charitably.
21. What Does This Mean for Someone Considering Becoming Catholic?
Anyone seriously considering the Catholic Church should approach this question with both faith and reason.
It is right to examine the historical evidence.
It is right to study Sacred Scripture.
It is right to read the Fathers and consider the objections raised by Orthodox theologians.
The Catholic Church does not ask someone to believe blindly without considering the reasons for faith.
But the purpose of this enquiry is not simply to decide which tradition is more attractive.
It is to discover what Jesus Christ established and to respond faithfully to Him.
A person may admire Orthodox liturgy.
He may appreciate Eastern spirituality.
He may find the writings of the Greek Fathers deeply inspiring.
None of these things prevents him from becoming Catholic.
Indeed, they may help him understand the richness of the universal Church.
The central question remains whether he recognises that Christ established a permanent Petrine office and that this office continues in the bishops of Rome.
If he becomes convinced that this is true, then full communion with Rome is not an optional preference.
It belongs to the unity of Christ’s Church.
At the same time, becoming Catholic is not merely an intellectual decision about the correct structure of ecclesiastical government.
It is a response to Jesus Christ.
It means receiving the faith which He entrusted to His Church.
It means sharing fully in her sacramental life.
It means allowing His grace to transform our lives.
And it means accepting the authority which He established for the preservation of the Gospel.
The ultimate purpose is not to win a historical argument.
It is to follow Christ faithfully and persevere in His grace until eternal life.
22. Living the Catholic Faith
There is a danger in apologetics.
We can become so interested in arguments about the Church that we forget why Christ founded her.
The Church exists for the salvation of souls.
The Pope is not the Saviour.
The bishops are not the source of grace.
The Sacraments do not exist to glorify ecclesiastical institutions.
Everything in the Church must lead us to Jesus Christ.
The authority of the Church exists so that the faith may be preserved.
The Sacraments exist so that Christ’s saving grace may be communicated to us.
The priesthood exists so that His people may be taught, sanctified and shepherded.
And ecclesiastical unity exists because Christ wills His people to be one.
If we believe these things, we must live accordingly.
We should pray for the Pope and the bishops.
We should seek to understand the Church’s teaching.
We should approach the Sacraments faithfully.
We should resist the temptation to treat Catholicism merely as a collection of opinions which we can accept or reject according to personal preference.
And we should pray sincerely for the healing of the divisions between Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
That unity cannot be achieved by pretending that doctrinal differences are unimportant.
Nor can it be achieved by abandoning revealed truth.
It must be founded upon the one faith which Christ entrusted to His Church.
Our responsibility is to seek that truth, remain faithful to it, and speak about it with charity.
We should also remember that Catholics themselves can damage the witness of the Church.
When we live carelessly, neglect the Sacraments, disregard the commandments or treat others without charity, we make it more difficult for people to recognise the beauty of the Catholic faith.
The strongest argument for Catholicism should be accompanied by the witness of a genuinely Catholic life.
Truth must be defended.
But it must also be lived.
Conclusion: The Church Christ Established
We began by asking why someone should become Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox.
We have seen that this is not a simple question of which tradition is older, which liturgy is more beautiful, or which community appears more faithful to ancient customs.
Both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy preserve much of the apostolic inheritance.
Both profess the ancient Christian faith.
Both possess bishops, priests and the true Eucharist.
Both honour the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints.
Both draw deeply upon Sacred Scripture and the teaching of the Fathers.
But there remains a fundamental disagreement concerning the authority established by Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church teaches that Christ gave St Peter a particular office for the unity and government of His Church.
That office did not disappear with Peter’s death.
It continues in his successors, the bishops of Rome.
The Pope therefore possesses a real primacy within the universal Church, not merely a ceremonial position of honour.
And under particular conditions, Christ preserves him from error when he definitively teaches the Church concerning faith and morals.
These are not optional Catholic opinions.
They are part of the defined doctrine of the Church.
The historical evidence concerning Rome’s authority is complex and must be examined carefully.
But Catholicism maintains that the biblical commission given to Peter, the witness of the early Church, and the legitimate development of doctrine together support the Church’s understanding of the Petrine office.
This leads to the central conclusion.
If Jesus Christ established the Petrine office as a permanent principle of unity, then communion with the successor of Peter belongs to the fullness of the Church He founded.
The Catholic Church believes that He did.
That is why she teaches that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.
This does not mean that every Catholic is holy or that every Pope has governed wisely.
It does not mean that Eastern Orthodox Christians lack genuine faith, holiness or sacramental grace.
It means that the fullness of Catholic communion includes the faith, Sacraments and ecclesiastical authority established by Christ.
And that is the fundamental reason for becoming Catholic.
Not because Rome is an important city.
Not because the Catholic Church is large.
Not because one liturgical tradition is more attractive than another.
But because Jesus Christ founded one Church and entrusted her with a visible and enduring unity.
Our task is to seek that Church, receive her faith, live her sacramental life, and remain faithful to the Lord who established her.
For ultimately, the question is not whether we prefer East or West.
It is whether we are willing to follow Jesus Christ and accept the Church as He intended her to be.
And the Catholic answer is that the fullness of that Church is found in communion with the successor of St Peter.
We are Catholic because we believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, entrusted her with the fullness of His saving truth, and established the office of Peter to serve her unity until the end of time.
May we remain faithful to that truth, live it with humility, and help others discover the riches of the faith which Christ entrusted to His Church.
Closing Prayer
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Lord Jesus Christ,
You prayed that all who believe in You might be one.
You founded Your Church upon the Apostles and entrusted St Peter with a special responsibility for her unity.
Strengthen our faith in the Church You established.
Help us to remain faithful to the truth handed down from the Apostles.
Protect the Pope, the bishops, priests and all Your people.
Heal the divisions between Christians, especially between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
May we never sacrifice truth for the sake of an outward appearance of unity, nor fail in charity towards those who disagree with us.
Through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, and of St Peter and St Paul, guide all who are searching for the fullness of the Christian faith.
May we remain united in Your truth, strengthened by Your grace, and faithful to Your commandments.
And may all our study, prayer and witness lead us to a deeper love of You, our Lord and Saviour.
Amen.
Scripture References
Matthew 16:13–19 — St Peter, the rock and the keys of the Kingdom.
Isaiah 22:20–22 — The key of the house of David.
Matthew 18:18 — The authority entrusted to the Apostles.
Matthew 28:18–20 — The mission of the Church.
Luke 22:31–32 — Peter’s commission to strengthen his brethren.
John 17:20–23 — Christ’s prayer for the unity of the Church.
John 21:15–17 — Peter’s commission to shepherd Christ’s flock.
Acts 15:1–29 — The Council of Jerusalem.
Galatians 2:11–14 — St Paul’s correction of Peter.
Ephesians 4:4–6 — One body, one Spirit and one faith.
1 Timothy 3:15 — The Church as pillar and ground of truth.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 — The importance of apostolic Tradition.
John 15:26; John 16:13–15 — The Holy Spirit and His relationship with the Father and the Son.
Matthew 19:3–9; Mark 10:11–12 — The permanence of marriage.
1 Corinthians 3:13–15 — The testing and purification of a person’s work.
2 Maccabees 12:43–46 — Prayer for the dead.
Revelation 21:27 — The holiness required for heaven.
The Fathers and Early Church
St Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapters 59–63.
St Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, introduction.
St Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 3.
St Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists, Book II, chapter 2.
Council of Chalcedon (451), the reception of Pope St Leo’s Tome.
Formula of Pope Hormisdas (519).
Third Council of Constantinople (680–681), the Monothelite controversy and the condemnation of Honorius.
Catholic Church Teaching
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraphs 77–100 — Sacred Tradition and the Church’s teaching authority.
Paragraphs 246–248 — The Filioque and the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Paragraphs 404–405 — Original sin.
Paragraphs 490–493 — The Immaculate Conception.
Paragraphs 830–838 — The Catholic Church and communion with other Christians.
Paragraphs 880–892 — The Pope, the bishops and the Magisterium.
Paragraphs 1030–1032 — Purgatory.
Paragraphs 1644–1651 — The permanence of marriage and difficult marital situations.
Ecumenical Councils
Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli (1439) — The procession of the Holy Spirit and the primacy of Rome.
First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus (1870) — Papal primacy and infallibility.
Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 18–25 — The episcopate, the Roman Pontiff and the teaching authority of the Church.
Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, 14–18 — The Eastern Churches and Christian unity.
Second Vatican Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum — The Eastern Catholic Churches and their traditions.
Further Reading
The Catechism of the Catholic Church — Vatican website
St Irenaeus — Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3
St Clement — First Epistle to the Corinthians
First Vatican Council — Pastor Aeternus
Second Vatican Council — Lumen Gentium
Second Vatican Council — Unitatis Redintegratio
The Council of Florence — Laetentur Caeli
For further study of the historical disagreements between Catholic and Orthodox scholars, the joint theological dialogue’s Synodality and Primacy During the First Millennium (Chieti, 2016) is a useful resource. It records areas of agreement and continuing disagreement, although it is not itself a dogmatic definition.
Continue Exploring the Catholic Faith
This teaching forms part of the parish’s ongoing Defending the Faith series, exploring Catholic teaching through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church.
Readers may also find the following sessions helpful:
Session 2 — Did Jesus Really Found the Church?
