Questions About Orthodoxy: How Are We Different Than Roman Catholicism?

I am sure certain apologists refer to epistemology, but I’m not convinced that (by itself) is the reason for the teaching on the Roman Pontiff. There are certain things that need to be defined, but this itself is subordinate to (though never attenuated by) the primary importance of unity in the Church. So if there is diversity of opinion on a matter touching on faith, but this does not lead to division, then there is little need to declare on it. If, on the other hand, it becomes a point of contention, this is when an authoritative decision can become necessary.

I was looking at the ecumenical councils to see, not just what they define about the Holy Father’s Office, but about the reasons for his having such prerogatives. Just to look at Vatican I, real quick: Chapters 3 and 4 of the Constitution on the Roman Pontiff are on different topics. Ch 3 is on the universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Holy Father; Ch 4 is on his infallible teaching authority. It is important to remember that these are not the same thing, and one depends on the other.

After defining his universal jurisdiction in ch 3, it gives a reason why this was given to him: In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd. The purpose of universal jurisdiction is the unity of the flock.

Then in ch 4, defining infallible teaching authority, the reason given is: For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. So here the purpose is protecting and expounding what is handed down. This is normally done in the way you mentioned, referring to the writings of the Fathers and the belief of the Church throughout the ages, but there is even greater security in this gift to the Church.

Later in the same ch 4, This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell. So here the reason the successor of St Peter has received the gift of infallible teaching authority is for the sake of preserving the truth, but this is in turn referred back to the reason for his universal jurisdiction: the preservation of unity in the Church.

If the reason for the infallible teaching office is epistemology, it is a practical epistemology, that refers to a more fundamental purpose: the unity of the Church.

I am interested to look back (to Lyons and Florence) and forward (to Vatican II) to see what reasons they assert when considering both the universal jurisdiction of the Holy Father, as well as his teaching authority. I expect similar reasons to be given.