One of the most stunning apologetics article I have read in years!

There is an amazing article on Eastern Orthodoxy, by an Eastern Orthodox author, being hosted on Devin Rose's amazing blog. If there is any article you should read this year, it's this one. It is stunning in it's sheer honesty and humility. I really cannot even describe it, you must read it.

The Five Patriarchs (Pentarchy) - Separating Fact from Fiction

It is often argued by the Eastern Orthodox that rather than there being a Papacy in the early Church, there was a Pentarchy, consisting of the co-equal leadership of the Church by the Five Patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. From this the Eastern Orthodox argue that Rome "fell away" from the orthodoxy of other Four Patriarchs, demonstrating that Rome is the odd-man-out and clearly in the wrong. Obviously only one of these can be correct, as they are two mutually exclusive forms of ecclesiology. The focus of this post will show that the Eastern Orthodox concept is false, and from this refute the idea that Rome is effectively 'out voted' 4-to-1 by the other Patriarchs. I will be presenting two definitive blows to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology in this matter.

Why identifying the Papacy with the Antichrist is an "essential" doctrine of Protestantism.

Over at the Called To Communion blog, Dr David Anders (who is one of the most solid converts in recent memory) wrote an article called Why Protestants Need the Antichrist. I highly encourage you to read the article and subscribe to CTC's feed. The thesis of the article is how some Protestants (not all!) have shifted their historical world-view from that of a restored Gospel to a developed Gospel. The tough part about the restoration thesis is that the Protestant must necessarily approach Christianity from an anti-intellectual standpoint, essentially ignoring Christian history from approximately the Apostolic Age up until the (Pretend) Reformation. Since this doesn't sit well with the more educated class, the "alternative" is essentially that of the classical Liberal Protestant thesis, which holds that the Gospel truths developed over time, right up to today. While classical Liberal Protestants went so far as to suggest doctrines such as Christ's Divinity were developments from primitive Christianity, this (rightly) doesn't sit well with many modern Liberal Protestants (i.e. Evangelicals) today, who thought that took "scholarship" too far. Instead, these Evangelicals felt there had to be some way to not ignore Christian history, yet still ignore or downplay the very unProtestant (and very Catholic) looking historical facts.

Does the Letter of 3rd John refute Protestantism?

The 3rd Letter of John is one of those interesting books of the Bible that everyone knows is there but pays little attention to. Being the shortest book of the Bible (with only 219 Greek words; 2nd John having 245, and Philemon having 335), one can wonder how much significance it has. Glossing over it, you see the standard stuff found in the rest of the New Testament, but since it's so brief it naturally it gets neglected. But could 3rd John actually contain information that knocks-out Protestantism in one punch? I believe so.

What would Mr Robinson Do? (Did St Maximus really abandon Rome?)

The Sixth Ecumenical Council assembled in 680 A.D. to deal with the Monothelite heresy. In the course of condemning this error, the Council also condemned various men who played a role in propagating this heresy, including Pope Honorius. Throughout history, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have pointed to this situation as definitive proof that the Pope is not infallible, and that he can even be overturned by an Ecumenical Council. On the surface, that sounds like quite an indictment, but the details reveal a different picture. (NB: The example of Honorius is a favorite for Catholic agitators because it's one of the extremely few situations in 2,000 years of Church history where they have any hope of making a case against the Papacy.) Now, many Catholics have already written in defense of Honorius and how this example doesn't undermine the Papacy, so I only want to touch upon certain key details rather than write a lengthy post repeating what's already been done in service to the Church. In particular, I want to address an objection made by an Eastern Orthodox apologist named Perry Robinson in his article, "What would Mr Newman Do?"

Council of Nicæa Proves Papacy

The Papacy is one of the most decisive (and divisive) issues in Christendom, particularly in determining whether or not the Catholic Church is the One True Church. While much can be said as far as the Scriptural support goes, the testimony of Tradition is just as powerful in this regard, most notably the testimony of the early Ecumenical Councils.

At this point many Eastern Orthodox and Protestants would object, saying that the Councils actually suggest the opposite, namely that the Bishop of Rome did not have the authority Catholics claim. One of the leading examples appealed to is the 6th Canon of the Council of Nicaea, which says (quoting only the most relevant portion):

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved.

Now there is some slightly different translations of certain terms of this canon, but this rendering is generally accepted. Reading this canon for the first time, many get the impression the Bishop of Rome is simply one bishop among others with no unique authority, directly undermining the notion of Papal Supremacy. This is the common take on this passage by Eastern Orthodox and Protestants.

The problem the Protestant is in is that even if their rendering were correct, the fact remains that this canon clearly teaches the Bishop of Rome has some high ranking authority, with the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch on some sort of equal footing. In other words, the early Church (as testified by this most important Council) was clearly one of a hierarchy of bishops, including very high ranking bishops - something totally incompatible with Protestantism. The only thing the Protestant can do is to ignore this Council and embrace an inconsistency of accepting the Council as orthodox Christianity but ignoring all the history and details of the Council (including the canons). This is indeed why many Protestants have no problem brushing off Nicaea or any other Council in favor of "Scripture Alone" (i.e. as soon as a "difficulty" arises, any part of any Council can be dispensed with).

But there is yet another detail here that is plain upon even a surface reading, and that is that this is a custom/tradition. Now if Nicaea took place in 325AD, it is no leap of faith to suggest this custom/tradition extended back at least 2-3 generations of Christians (if not further, as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would suggest), meaning this custom goes back easily 75-100 years (again, if not further, which there's no reason to deny). This means there was an acknowledged bishop of Rome, with this authority, easily dating back to 225AD. Now if the last Apostle (St John) died around 90AD, and any given Protestant is going to suggest the Papacy is an apostate invention, then this means Christianity had to have gone apostate in under 150 years.

While the Eastern Orthodox would not deny the Bishop of Rome Traditionally had high authority (as many historical Christian testimonies prove), even being the "first among equals" (an uninspired and fictitious phrase invented by anti-Papal advocates) when it came to the (three) Patriarchs (i.e. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch), there still leaves the issue of whether this canon suggests Primacy or rather Roman subordination to this Council (and equal authority among Bishops). That the Bishop of Rome is looked to as a "standard" here in this canon is itself good evidence that the Bishop of Rome was not merely "first among equals" with no true superior authority. But that's only granting the anti-Papal interpretation of the canon!

What is the Catholic interpretation of this canon?

To answer that question, Catholics have made the following argument, masterfully stated in this article. Here is the essence of the argument:

• To render Canon 6 along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch [with his own separate jurisdiction]" is nonsense; it's the non-sequitur fallacy: it doesn't follow nor fit with the (territorial) claims being made in regards to Alexandria.

• The only reading that makes sense is something along the lines of: "Let the Bishop of Alexandria rule this jurisdiction since it is the tradition of the Pope to grant Alexandria this jurisdiction." This directly connects to the first clause, and the reasoning and force of the argument is that the authority to which it is appealing to (i.e. Rome) is sufficient to settle the matter.

This obviously entails two things: the Council submitting to the traditions of the Pope (Bishop of Rome), and a clear primacy over the other two Patriarchs (and by extension all bishops of the Church). This refutes Eastern Orthodoxy.

*          *          *

Update: 5-12-12

I just found another great piece of evidence to supply to this argument. In the Second Ecumenical Council (i.e. Constantinople 1), about 50 years after Nicaea, here is what was said in Canon 2: 

Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers.

This Canon is most certainly calling to mind Canon 6 of Nicaea. Yet notice that there is no mention of Rome among the two giants of Alexandria and Antioch. This strongly supports the claim that Rome has no boundaries, and thus Canon 6 was indeed not putting Rome as on par with Alexandria and Antioch. 

And to drive this point even further home, notice what Canon 3 of Constantinople 1 says:

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

So here Rome is mentioned, and it clearly is shown to be the head, as even the man-made See of Constantinople (with no ancient customs and no apostolic roots) is said to be in second rank. 

In short, these two Councils did not dare to infringe upon the rights and prerogatives of Rome.