Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[ConstantineTG]

Good post. Many people think that it’s unrealistic to expect just one side or the other to admit to being wrong, but not to expect both sides to admit to being wrong. That’s a little odd.

Well, I don’t think any side will admit they are wrong. Which is why we have our wheels stuck in the mud and spinning the last 1000 years.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I don’t think any side will admit they are wrong. Which is why we have our wheels stuck in the mud and spinning the last 1000 years.

Well, perhaps not. But at least, while we’re waiting to see if that happens, we can try to improve relations, get along better. :slapfight:

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t think so… but this may indeed signal what we both began to suspect before we finished our respective replies: that we’re talking past each other and simply using terminology differently; in other words, disputing about words as Saint Paul warns against.

The pope’s ordinary universal jurisdiction still doesn’t give him, in matters that pertain to particular churches *other *than the Diocese of Rome, the proper authority that the local bishop possesses. Although I don’t have access to a copy in English of the papacy’s official interpretation of Vatican I, I’ve still been able to read large chunks of it because posters like Marduk have quoted it at length on this forum, and it actually specifically rules out that the pope has this proper authority anywhere except in matters that pertain to the Church (or the Latin Church) in general, and in the Church of Rome itself.

But again there is that caveat that says that the just because the Pope has never exercised a certain power, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have it. There’s too many of this little things that can make anyone who doesn’t agree with the Absolutist view troubled. We can’t take one statement to be the be-all, end-all definitive interpretation of the Papacy. There are too many official texts out there that say otherwise.

The practical consequences of that distinction are that, because the pope can’t impede the proper authority of a local bishop, we have an ecclesiology in which the head (the pope) and the body (the bishops in union with him) must act in agreement with each other, unlike in neo-Ultramontanism, in which the pope can, at will and in any matter, force his will on the body unconditionally, and unlike in the “Low Petrine” view, in which the body can act without the consent and approval of the head.

The Pope does impede the authority of local bishops. In the Latin Church if the bishop doesn’t want to give you a Latin Mass, there’s a Vatican commission you write to. And before you say, “but that’s the Latin Church, he wouldn’t do that in the Eastern Church,” I point back again to Pope John Paul II’s clarification on Vatican I stating that just because the Roman Pontiff has not exercised an authority in the past, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have it. If he does it in the Latin Church, I’m sure it will be done in an Eastern Church when the necessity for it arises.

Or, as I said in another thread in response to somebody’s asking if “bishop of bishops” is an appropriate description of the pope:

*"I wouldn’t say that. I find it misleading. To me such a title - “bishop of bishops” - would imply that the pope’s universal authority relates to the authority of other bishops in the same manner in which other bishops’ authority relates to the authority of their priests.

"And that is false. It is neo-Ultramontanism and is often called the Absolutist Petrine view in this forum.

"A priest’s authority is entirely dependent upon that of his bishop, who can micromanage whatever he wants within his diocese, to whatever extent he wants. On the other hand, a bishop’s status as the proper Ordinary of his church (diocese) is not something that has its origin or validity in papal delegation. The episcopate is of divine establishment as much as the papacy is, and it is the episcopate that the Church Fathers - think St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, etc. - identify as basically the crowning feature of authority in the Catholic Church.

“The pope of Rome, as the successor of Saint Peter, is the head bishop for the entire Catholic Church. His authority over the Church is supreme, universal, ordinary, and his by virtue of the Church’s divine constitution, but he is not the default authority in a place where the Christian faithful are united around the Eucharistic table under a different bishop.”*

Ordinary, in Church language, means he does have such authority in every local diocese. He may not be the default authority in practice today, but doesn’t mean he can’t be. This does show that technically every diocese has two local ordinaries. The one who is the recognizable Local Ordinary, and the Pope.

I know you’ll probably say, Constantine, that if the pope oversteps these theoretical boundaries today, who is going to stop him? And I suppose in theory there really wouldn’t be anyone who could; still, I admit I do trust our Holy Father’s dedication to the true collegial ecclesiology of the Catholic Church as enshrined in the Vatican Councils. So I guess that’s something I don’t fear.

I don’t think the issue really is the fear of a Pope going rogue and becoming a dictator. Although that is always a possibility. The issue is that the Pope never had such authority and this is something new introduced in the Second Millennium.

As regards the eastern Catholic churches, things like Latinization that still plague you never come from Rome anyway, which would have you be fully eastern just as the Second Vatican Council wished.

Well, some did come from Rome at some point in the past. The problem today is that it has been ingrained too much for us to get rid of it.

Are they subject to the pope in the same way Latin bishops are? I’ll grant that for the Metropolitan or eparchial eastern churches, such is probably the de facto case. But - and this is an honest question; I’m not a member of these churches, so I don’t know - wouldn’t a pan-diocesan issue in the Melkite Church, Coptic Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc., be handled in synod and its solution confirmed by the patriarch or major archeparch?

Well, the same way that the USCCB handles things for the US. But at the end of it there are some controls from Rome. And if push comes to shove, Rome can always put her hand in it. Although for me if this was clearly stated as the norm, its acceptable. This to me is more High Petrine than absolutist. The Pope should be a check-and-balance of the Church, not her benevolent dictator.

Of course, I acknowledge this. I was just surprised that you thought Pope Benedict XVI personally holds the neo-Ultramontanist view. Maybe that’s not what you meant; either way, such a claim is quite a stretch.

I’d think any Pope does, to some extent. That is what the Church teaches about the Papacy, why would they believe something else?

Yes, very true. But even in theory he’s not allowed to impede the proper authority of a local orthodox bishop.

Of course not, they’re not Catholic

The neo-Ultramontanist minority at Vatican II objected even to the Council’s acknowledgement that there is a “College of Bishops” in whom the supreme authority of the Church lies. They thought that to speak of them as a group in any meaningful, objective sense is to obscure the supreme authority of the papacy, and they essentially regarded the other bishops of the Catholic Church as no more than the pope’s deputies, whose authority derives from him alone and who do not possess, by virtue of their episcopal status, any divinely established, inviolable rights.

That is the “Absolutist Petrine” view. I am confident that consistent Catholic teaching is rather that each bishop, by virtue of his episcopal status, exercises true and inviolable headship in his diocese. Not only is he the successor to the Apostles, but as St. Ignatius of Antioch teaches us, is as God on earth. The pope is to the other bishops what Saint Peter was to the other Apostles, not what a bishop is to his priests.

If it was this way, then I’d agree. But I see so many indications that points to the contrary. But then again, I’m just saying we should gladly accept that truth rather than wrangle around creating fascinations of what the Papacy is not in reality. Lets be honest and say, we’re Catholic and we are all under the Pope.

I don’t necessarily think that claim constitutes a claim to autocephaly. I think they’re just trying to emphasize that the pope is not the default authority in their church, which is governed by their bishops and synods (unless it’s an eparchial or hierarchy-less eastern Catholic church, like the Russian Catholic Church). I think they do this because many Catholics still have this inaccurate idea that the pope calls all the shots from above, and that his orders are carried out by local bishops. They want to ensure that people understand this is not supposed to be the case.

Not the default but he still is. Which is the problem.

Oh, I agree. I don’t understand why Rome babies the SSPX. In light of Summorum Pontificum and the FSSP, we don’t need what the SSPX has to offer. Their dissent is tiresome, and I wholeheartedly concur, Constantine, that it would certainly be appropriate if Pope Benedict simply said, “When you guys are ready to accept Vatican II without equivocation, we’ll be here to regularize you. See you then.”

I’ve been saying the same thing. I don’t know why run after the SSPX. And right now to the extent of endangering the integrity of the Papacy. But then again, all we have right now is hearsay. I hope the reports are wrong. If the SSPX gets a pass on Vatican II, I’d be greatly disappointed and question myself why I am Catholic.

 

[jam070406]

Well, I do hope he shares my opinion about then especially with how they view the new Mass. If not, well, Lord have mercy on the Catholic Church.

He doesn’t share your view. He WANTS them and they want to be reconciled fully with him. He was pleased with Fellay’s response. But the congregation for the doctrine of Faith changed Fellay’s revised preamble. Which Fellay said was unacceptable, since the Pope had shown that it was favorable to him before it was revised. You should be praying that Pope Benedict is protected from the wolves, like he asked. The Pope needs to put his foot down and eliminate the middle man in this situation. And the media doesn’t help by referring to them as radical Traditionalists, dissenters, etc.

Since anyone is free to celebrate the TLM, why should they have the NO liturgy (which Pope Benedict has described can in many places be described as banal) forced on them, any more then Easterners should have Latinizations forced on them.

 

[TrueLight]

I’ve been saying the same thing. I don’t know why run after the SSPX. And right now to the extent of endangering the integrity of the Papacy. But then again, all we have right now is hearsay. I hope the reports are wrong. If the SSPX gets a pass on Vatican II, I’d be greatly disappointed and question myself why I am Catholic.

Constantine, I don’t think you hide that you are already questioning why you’re Catholic for reasons that have nothing to do with the SSPX.

The point is if the Pope is willing to say frame Vatican II in a different light, maybe the traditionalists were right all along. Whatever the intention of Vat II, some modernists had different intentions, and maybe the Pope is saying the intentions that some brought into it is not how VAT II was to be interpreted.

I don’t want this thread to be derailed, but why does this trouble you so?

 

[steve_b]

But the Byzantine Christians were in great danger of being overrun by the Muslim Ottomans, and *the emperor was hoping that if the Orthodox hierarches reached an agreement with their Latin Catholic counterparts to heal the separation, he would receive sufficient aid from the Western Christians to defend against the menace at his doorstep. *

A quid pro quo arrangement was already done earlier with disasterous results … remember? Then it was a former emperor wanting to regain his former thrown. Everybody hears about the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders. They never talk about why it happened, nor do we hear about what the Byzantines did to the Latins in Constantinople, years earlier to cause some serious bad relations http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html

the pope still tries for peace with the East, thus Florence. The mindset of the Byzantines at the time however, was “Rather the turban of the Sultan than the tiara of the Pope.” Look up the phrase.
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Eastern_Schism
T:

So, the delegates from the East at the Council of Florence were in a very tight spot, whether because of pressure from the emperor or dread about the demise of their Christian state–the only bulwark standing in the way of their subjugation to Islam. I would not take the assent of those Orthodox hierarches to Latin Catholic doctrines as holding much water given the dire political circumstances they and their coreligionists were facing back home.

Think about what was just said. Who in the West of sound mind, knowing the history, and now some new history (yet another failed attempt at unity) would drop what they are doing to volunteer to fight the Muslins and in all liklyhood die, for a people who really don’t like you and the feeling is somewhat mutual… Everybody at the time knows the history behind this. The West had to deal with Islam as well. Therefore, imagine yourself in this period of European history as a Westerner, not an Easterner. Would you volunteer for this fight?

 

[Peter_J]

Oh, I agree. I don’t understand why Rome babies the SSPX. In light of Summorum Pontificum and the FSSP, we don’t need what the SSPX has to offer. Their dissent is tiresome, and I wholeheartedly concur, Constantine, that it would certainly be appropriate if Pope Benedict simply said, “When you guys are ready to accept Vatican II without equivocation, we’ll be here to regularize you. See you then.”

This is commonly heard on CAF, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other places where one could hear just the opposite. (Not that really want to get into a debate about it – I’m not a big fan of the SSPX.)

 

[steve_b]

What commission would that be?

Really?

 

[steve_b]

Well, I can guess why it hasn’t advanced. Its mainly because the West doesn’t want to relinquish universal ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope. Perhaps when Cardinal Ratzinger is suggesting to “return to Papal authority as it was in the First Millennium,” he is speaking of it from the Catholic point of view which is what it is today. Of course the Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction since Jesus gave the keys to Peter, to say otherwise is to admit Vatican I introduced new doctrine and therefore heretical. I doubt then-Cardinal Ratzinger was actually suggesting that we reverse Vatican I. He is endorsing that we take a look at the First Millennium and believe in the interpretation of Vatican I that it has always been like this since the beginning.

Jesus did say, He would build His Church, and we know where the see of Peter is.
C:

And I am not denying that. Again, my point is we either accept this as it is stated. If we do not, then we should think why we are Catholic. We cannot accept a position other than this one and remain Catholic. It does not make sense.

“I believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church” is an article of faith…true? After saying that, then next is obedience to what we say we believe in.

When writing to the Church of Rome, Paul says

Rom 1: 1-8
1 Paul, a servant * of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and designated * Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship* to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ; 7* To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8* First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

is obedience of faith an option? No

Rm 16:17-20, 26
17* I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, * and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19* For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20* then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

26 but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith–

It’s not just faith but obedience of faith that Paul is to bring about. Obedience of faith is a command from God. Paul opens up the book of Romans teaching it, and he closes the book of Romans teaching it. And notice, for those who are obedient to the faith, Paul rejoices over them. And since Paul is writing under the power of the HS, we know then, God rejoices over those who are obedient to faith, because they are being obedient to Jesus Christ and for the sake of His name
C:

Well, each side has a stand that is completely the opposite of what the other side has.

Truth is not schizophrenic…true?
C:

How do you give way then? One has to compromise their beliefs and admit they were wrong for the last 1000 years. Do you think that will happen? It is about compromising the truth, or at least the truth that each side holds on to.

Did you happen to see the quotes/links I gave from Melkite Bp John ?

“When we declared our union with Rome – in consistency with Apostolic tradition interrupted somehow by historical circumstances – we accepted the Catholic faith in its entirety. We do recognize the authority of the Pope of Rome, including universal jurisdiction and infallibility for whatever concerns faith and morals. It is true that the Western Theologians themselves have their own debates concerning these points; so we should not be “more papist that the Pope;” but Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as “Orthodox united to Rome” only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for “unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit.”
There is no ‘Eastern truth’ vs ‘Western truth’. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. Truth should not be restricted by “party line” positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given “identity.” The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say “Oh, we don’t believe that in the East.” This seems to be where we get short-circuited in ecumenical “dialogue.” All too frequently, such “dialogue” seems to presuppose a relativism where you speak “your truth” and I’ll speak “my truth” and we’ll just leave it at that. A sort of ecumenical schizophrenia.”
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-...yclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites

“To be a Catholic Christian means that one accepts the primacy of the Pope of Rome, because he is the successor of St. Peter. To be an Orthodox Christian means that one does not recognize the primacy of the Pope of Rome, but considers him as “first among equals.”
According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.
The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)
If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

 

[Trebor135]

so in essence you are saying the orthodox lied in doctrinal matters to secure military aid.

I’m not in a position to read their minds and hearts, especially not six hundred years later. All I can say is that the Orthodox hierarches were not, given the circumstances back home, going to be in the right frame of mind for conducting theological give-and-take in a calm, serene fashion.

 

[Trebor135]

i dont really understand this arguement (sorry for drawing you back) so the council arent infalliable? That mean anyone can accuse those councils of heresy, i guess the protestant are already doing it.

The Protestants who follow Calvin and Zwingli reject and despise Nicea II–the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 which condemned iconoclasm.

There must be scriptural and traditional arguments for the veneration of icons, statues, and crosses. Conciliar infallibility is not necessarily essential for an effective response to this and other heresies.

 

[Cavaradossi]

i dont really understand this arguement (sorry for drawing you back) so the council arent infalliable? That mean anyone can accuse those councils of heresy, i guess the protestant are already doing it.
Ubenedictus

Councils are not completely infallible. Even Catholics will say that, as Catholics seem only to believe that councils are infallible on matters of doctrine (which furthermore should be solemnly pronounced, so some doctrinal matter that is simply mentioned in the acts of a council but is not solemnly pronounced wouldn’t be infallible either), but not on other matters. For the Orthodox, a council’s ‘infallibility’ is only so because of its adherence to the tradition of the Apostles, which has been crystallized in time through the writings of particular fathers and the declarations of certain councils which only later received widespread recognition as being good representatives of the apostolic tradition.

 

[Trebor135]

after that proclamation is made there will be about 10000 catholics, what a joke! The filioque, papal infalliabity and jurisdiction, when the filioque is proclaim heresy then about 70% of the latin father will be heretic, when the pope proclaims in a statement that papal infalliability is wrong, then catholic would assume that he has erred, well be the time that statement has been made im sure the pope would be labeled ‘anti-christ’.

If the pope composed and published an encyclical condemning the filioque, papal universal jurisdiction, and his doctrinal infallibility, we could expect to see a huge falling away from Catholicism. The faithful would succumb, understandably so, to sentiments of profound disillusionment–such a proclamation would turn their world upside down.

Also, if seventy percent of the Latin Fathers–as you say–believed in the filioque, why are any irenic Eastern Orthodox still making a fuss over it?

 

[Trebor135]

no damage was done in 1870, the council defined papal authority and vat 2 completed it work by defining the authority of the council.

Vatican I, though, set up potentially insurmountable stumbling blocks to reunion with the Eastern Orthodox, who believe the 1870 dogmas to be irreconcilable with their faith and with the record of history.

 

[Trebor135]

A quid pro quo arrangement was already done earlier with disasterous results … remember? Then it was a former emperor wanting to regain his former thrown. Everybody hears about the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders. They never talk about why it happened, nor do we hear about what the Byzantines did to the Latins in Constantinople, years earlier to cause some serious bad relations http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html

How are the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the Massacre of the Latins there in 1182 related to the failed reunion council at Ferrara-Florence in 1439-1442?

the pope still tries for peace with the East, thus Florence. The mindset of the Byzantines at the time however, was “Rather the turban of the Sultan than the tiara of the Pope.” Look up the phrase.
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Eastern_Schism

I’m familiar with the phrase, and am not arguing that the Byzantines en Masse (en Liturgie?–forgive the pun ) were all-loving, long-suffering saints. But an agreement sincerely accepted by both parties cannot be discussed when one side’s emperor and homeland are in a tenuous position vis-à-vis a sinister and implacable enemy.

Think about what was just said. Who in the West of sound mind, knowing the history, and now some new history (yet another failed attempt at unity) would drop what they are doing to volunteer to fight the Muslins and in all liklyhood die, for a people who really don’t like you and the feeling is somewhat mutual… Everybody at the time knows the history behind this. The West had to deal with Islam as well. Therefore, imagine yourself in this period of European history as a Westerner, not an Easterner. Would you volunteer for this fight?

You have a point. But I was discussing the situation in which the Eastern Orthodox representatives at Ferrara-Florence found themselves while dialoguing with the Latins, not the prejudice and resentment of their flocks back home.

 

[steve_b]

How are the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the Massacre of the Latins there in 1182 related to the failed reunion council at Ferrara-Florence in 1439-1442?

when you made the point that the emperor wanted Eastern hierarchs to agree to reunite in exchange for the West helping the East defend against Islam, I merely recounted that kind of political quid pro quo was already tried with a previous emperor of Constantinople, that ended badly.

If, in the minds of Eastern hierarchs, this was a political agreement, not a theological and ecclesiastical union, then already one could say, the process of unity with those hierarchs was flawed and doomed to fail.

I’m familiar with the phrase, and am not arguing that the Byzantines en Masse (en Liturgie?–forgive the pun ) were all-loving, long-suffering saints.* But an agreement sincerely accepted by both parties cannot be discussed when one side’s emperor and homeland are in a tenuous position vis-à-vis a sinister and implacable enemy*.

But they did meet. And the council did end with an agreement to be in union. Islam didn’t attack and conquor Constantinople till 1453
T:

You have a point. But I was discussing the situation in which the Eastern Orthodox representatives at Ferrara-Florence found themselves while dialoguing with the Latins, not the prejudice and resentment of their flocks back home.

As I mentioned previously, I thought this is an authority issue that goes back to Adam. Jesus set up the hierarchy model for His Church, and He put Peter as the leader of the Church on earth. How can Peter then confirm his brothers as Jesus directed, when Peter has brothers who refuse to be in union with him? How can Peter feed, tend, rule Our Lord’s sheep as Jesus directed, when there are sheep who refuse to be fed, tended, ruled by Peter?

 

[Trebor135]

when you made the point that the emperor wanted Eastern hierarchs to agree to reunite in exchange for the West helping the East defend against Islam, I merely recounted that kind of political quid pro quo was already tried with a previous emperor of Constantinople, that ended badly.

Right.

If, in the minds of Eastern hierarchs, this was a political agreement, not a theological and ecclesiastical union, then already one could say, the process of unity with those hierarchs was flawed and doomed to fail.

Absolutely.

But they did meet. And the council did end with an agreement to be in union. Islam didn’t attack and conquor Constantinople till 1453

That doesn’t mean that the Eastern Orthodox delegates didn’t rush into a reunion agreement out of concern for the welfare and independence of their homeland.

As I mentioned previously, I thought this is an authority issue that goes back to Adam. Jesus set up the hierarchy model for His Church, and He put Peter as the leader of the Church on earth. How can Peter then confirm his brothers as Jesus directed, when Peter has brothers who refuse to be in union with him? How can Peter feed, tend, rule Our Lord’s sheep as Jesus directed, when there are sheep who refuse to be fed, tended, ruled by Peter?

Well, you smuggle in the assumptions that St. Peter’s successors in Rome can never fall into error and all other bishops are obligated to maintain or restore communion with them. It is important to remember that Eastern patriarchs were frequently heretics during the First Millennium–including (we can be sure) at Antioch and Alexandria, sees founded directly by St. Peter and indirectly by the chief apostle via his disciple St. Mark. Please see the thread “What is the ‘Chair of Peter’?” on the knotty question of the basis for the authority claimed by the bishop of Rome.

 

[steve_b]

That doesn’t mean that the Eastern Orthodox delegates didn’t rush into a reunion agreement out of concern for the welfare and independence of their homeland.

One could also ask, what would have happened if they united with a pure motive?
T:

Well, you smuggle in the assumptions that St. Peter’s successors in Rome can never fall into error and all other bishops are obligated to maintain or restore communion with them.

If there is any assumption here, it’s that Jesus will keep His promises. All of them.

Union was the prayer of Our Lord. Perfect union, the kind Jesus and the Father have. Therefore it’s a command, and a matter of obedience to maintain that union.
T:

It is important to remember that Eastern patriarchs were frequently heretics during the First Millennium–including (we can be sure) at Antioch and Alexandria, sees founded directly by St. Peter and indirectly by the chief apostle via his disciple St. Mark. Please see the thread “What is the ‘Chair of Peter’?” on the knotty question of the basis for the authority claimed by the bishop of Rome.

Interesting thread you started

Not to repeat anything already said there, I would bring up 2 points

1. 
   *]No pope of Rome has ever taught heresy. Honorius is always brought up as an exception. He’s not. He never taught heresy.
   *]The Catholic Church has taken Our Lord’s command seriously, to go out and evangelize the world. That’s why the CC is the single biggest institution on the planet.
   
   Jesus said 2000 years ago, “I will build MY Church”. Just thinking outloud, there ought to be something rather large by now to show for that, where Peter is the leader … true?
   
   Check out what the Blessed Mother did with one event. She brought 9 million into the CC as a result of one event. Way to go MOM!
   sancta.org/intro.html
   
   As an associative event, at this time in history the Protestant revolt took place. Exodus of some, welcoming of others into the Church in an associative big event.

 

[sasg]

Not to repeat anything already said there, I would bring up 2 points

1. 
   *]No pope of Rome has ever taught heresy. Honorius is always brought up as an exception. He’s not. He never taught heresy.
   *]The Catholic Church has taken Our Lord’s command seriously, to go out and evangelize the world. That’s why the CC is the single biggest institution on the planet.

1. 
   Regarding the first bullet, I would like to point out that it is possible that a Pope could fall into heresy and could teach heresy. Popes are men and have free will, even after they become Pope. The thinking is that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church and prevent a Pope from making any heretical ex cathedra statements.
   
   One day, if the Pope ever does adopt a heresy, and purports to make an infallible, ex cathedra statement teaching a known heresy (say, iconoclasm), that would definitively prove that the Roman dogma of Papal Infallibility is false.
   
   Of course as a Catholic, I am required to believe that such a thing could never happen.

 

[steve_b]

Regarding the first bullet, I would like to point out that it is possible that a Pope could fall into heresy and could teach heresy.

The teaching on infallibility is definitional

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
     s:
     

     Popes are men and have free will, even after they become Pope. The thinking is that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church and prevent a Pope from making any heretical ex cathedra statements.
     
     One day, if the Pope ever does adopt a heresy, and purports to make an infallible, ex cathedra statement teaching a known heresy (say, iconoclasm), that would definitively prove that the Roman dogma of Papal Infallibility is false.
     
     Of course as a Catholic, I am required to believe that such a thing could never happen.

     So why speculate?
     
     look closely at the definition above. It is written very specifically. No pope has violated that. There have been 266 since Peter so far.
     
     BTW, when you see words like the following "we teach and define" then what follows is an infallible statement.
     
     Example
     
     Jimmy Akin gives the following example to what language is used that triggers an infallible teaching (teach and define)
     

     In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” ([example (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2STEIN.HTM)). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” ([source (http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM)). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements [snip] (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)
     http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html