Vatican I Debunks Itself: A Response to Erick Ybarra

When I converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy, my biggest obstacle was how obvious the case for Orthodoxy seemed. The arguments for papal infallibility and supremacy as defined by the First Vatican Council (“papalism” hereafter) struck me as weak—so weak that I assumed I must have missed the “real” defense. Yet the more research I did, the less plausible its claims appeared.

This experience has shaped my approach to apologetics. For instance, Catholics like Erick Ybarra defend their position with quote mines and references to obscure historical events. Many Orthodox apologists respond to Mr. Ybarra by getting into the weeds with him. I believe this is a mistake. With all due respect to our Catholic friends, it gives their position too much credit.

A parallel: when progressives defend transgender ideology by citing medical authorities, conservatives often try to counter with superior scientific arguments. But the simplest response is also the most effective: “That’s not a woman, it’s a dude in a skirk.” Diving into details makes the issue seem debatable when it’s perfectly straightforward. You don’t need advanced degrees in biology or psychology to decide which bathroom to use. 

The same applies to Catholic claims about the papacy. The teachings of Vatican I are obviously false. We shouldn’t follow Catholics into their rabbit holes. That only serves to confuse the obvious.

Papism, in Theory and Practice

In a recent article, I point out that Catholics affirm papal infallibility despite not being able to agree when the pope is speaking infallibly.

Yet, as Mr. Ybarra demonstrates in his reply, Catholic apologists aren’t too worried by this. It doesn’t bother them that the papacy can’t actually solve debates within the Church. They’re happy to defend infallibility/supremacy as an abstraction, a theory, a logical corollary.

But that's not what their Church says.

Vatican I’s dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus presents the papacy as a “permanent benefit” to the Church. Gasser’s relatio, the official interpretation of Vatican I, calls the popes an “immobile bulwark of faith” that protects the flock from error, nourishes it with truth, and ensures it “lacks nothing.” 

Likewise, Pope Leo XIII’s landmark encyclical Satis Cognitum declares: “It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity.” 

To say that modern popes have failed this test is putting it mildly. On the contrary: they have caused tremendous theological, liturgical, and moral disorder—even by Catholics’ own reckoning. Mr. Ybarra himself recently confessed, “I’ve never seen a worse condition in Church history.”

Obviously, the infallible and supreme papacy isn’t doing its job. And if the system fails in practice, the theory is flawed. Saying “real papal infallibility has never been tried” is as incoherent as claiming Marxism “works in theory.”

Everywhere, Always, By All?

Pastor Aeternus claims papal infallibility/supremacy belongs to “the tradition received from the beginning.” It refers to papalism as the “clear witness” of Holy Scripture taught by Scripture, the constant custom of the Church, and “all the venerable fathers.”

Likewise, Satis Cognitum: “Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age.”

This echoes the Vincentian Canon, that true doctrine is what has been believed “everywhere, always, by all.” Papal infallibility fails this test spectacularly.

Consider Matthew 16:18—“You are Peter, and on this rock…” No patristic commentary on the Gospel text interprets it as establishing the papacy. Most Church Fathers see the rock as Christ, Peter’s confession, or the episcopate. A minority link the “rock” to Peter personally; none, however, connect it uniquely to Roman successors. 

(I’m aware that, in other contexts, some first-millennium theologians used the language of Matthew 16:18 in connection with the pope. Yet they did the same with the Roman Emperors, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and others. This was a common way of praising Christian leaders for their orthodoxy, since they thought the “rock” referred to Peter’s confession.)

Can you imagine a modern Catholic exegete failing to observe that Matthew 16:18 is about the establishment of the papacy? And yet Rome claims to have the exact same understanding of this passage as the Early Church. This absence in formal exegesis is, in itself, proof that they're wrong, and that Vatican I teaches error.

Even if there were one or two examples, it makes no difference. We would still be far from establishing that papalism is the “constant belief of every age,” established by the “clear witness” of Scripture and having been taught by “all the venerable fathers.”

The Rite to Succeed

Even granting Peter received a unique charism, Catholics would still have to prove:

• The charism of infallibility and supremacy survived Peter as an office.

• It passed only to Peter’s successors in Rome—not those in Antioch or Alexandria.

• Peter explicitly transferred the infallible/supreme charism to Linus, permanently establishing the papal office in Rome.

Moreover, they would have to prove that this was the “constant belief of every age.” Which, of course, they can't.

The Popes vs. the Councils

Pastor Aeternus asserts the pope’s primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, with full power to rule in faith, morals, discipline, and government. It forbids appealing from papal judgments to councils as a superior authority.

Yet the Seven Ecumenical Councils were called by emperors, not popes. The popes didn’t always preside, either. 

Constantinople I (381) was convened by Emperor Theodosius without Pope Damasus I’s permission. Theodosius appointed Meletius of Antioch as president, despite the fact that Damasus had “deposed” Meletius some years earlier. Incidentally, it was at Constantinople I that the Four Marks of the Church—one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—were added to the Creed. Clearly, the Council Fathers did not consider any of them a synonym for “papal”!

The Council of Chalcedon (451) declared that “the Fathers… granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.” No mention of Christ or St. Peter.

At Constantinople II (553), the emperor and bishops compelled Pope Vigilius to attend against his will, overriding his support for the heretical Three Chapters. The Council Fathers insisted that such disputes require fraternal debate: “The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith,” they warned the pope, “since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbor.”

Constantinople III (680) anathematized Pope Honorius and expelled him from the Church. 

Pope St. Leo III (9th c.) rejected attempts to add the filioque to the Nicene Creed because the creed had been formulated by two Ecumenical Councils. Echoing Constantinople II, he pointed out that the Council Fathers had “acted upon divine illumination rather than by human wisdom,” Leo declared. “Far be it from me to count myself their equal.” 

Conclusion

Remember, the Catholic Church doesn’t claim scattered hints of papal supremacy in history. It declares papal infallibility and supremacy to be the “constant belief of every age”—the “clear witness” of both Scripture and Tradition, in theory and as well as in practice. Clearly, this is not the case. 

Likewise, Vatican I says the popes will always serve as “immovable bulwarks of faith”—a “constant benefit” to the Church. This, too, is obviously wrong.

So, we don’t need to dissect every patristic phrase or translation. That’s the definition of missing the forest from the trees. Rome’s teachings about the papacy are self-evidently wrong. The documents debunk themselves. 

To our Catholic friends: I’m sorry, but that’s all there is to say. Who hath ears to hear, let them hear. Who hathn’t—God love you.

Read also