There are 3 Early Church Father quotes which are making me even consider this as a possibility…but how to I know how reliable their translation into English is or even if they are legitament quotes and were not innovated later to substatiate Rome’s claims for being the sole source of unity for all the Churches?
I assume these three quotes have convinced you that the Pope is either 1) Infallible 2) Possesses universal jurisdiction over the Church and/or 3) Union with Rome is necessary to be “in the Church” and preserve the Church’s unity.
I would respond to the first assertion by stating that the dogma of papal infallibility only means that the Pope may define certain doctrines as dogmas. In other words, he is believed to be infallible in that he teaches the truth in an authoritative fashion. It doesn’t ensure that the Pope won’t fall into heresy. If the Pope has always had the right to define dogmas, why don’t we see any record of this occurring before 1854? This looks very suspicious for a doctrine claiming to be ancient in origin and Orthodoxy has good grounds to resist such a teaching, which looks more like a “new Gospel” (Gal. 1:8) being preached than a zealous defense of the Faith “once for all” delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
I would respond to the second assertion by stating that if the Pope has always had universal jurisdiction over the Church, why were there such strong, independent patriarchates in the early Eastern Church? If the Pope could operate in full power anytime and anywhere he wanted in the Church, why didn’t he simply appoint Latin legates to do his business in the East instead of running the risk of schism with powerful patriarchs who operated in the East much like he did in the West? I find it interesting that in the years we claim that Papal Rome’s authority grew out of its bounds (1070s-1200s, respectively) that the new patriarchs appointed for the East by the Pope were not like their ancient patriarchal predecessors at all. These patriarchs basically did the bidding of the Pope and didn’t mirror the strong, independent nature of the early patriarchs of the Eastern Sees. To this day, Catholicism hasn’t been able to recapture the spirit and form of these early Eastern patriarchs, even though she has and continues to have Eastern patriarchs. This is a great defense of our allegation that after the Great Schism, Papal Rome really did change her relations toward the East and developed claims to power over the East that she, heretofore, had never claimed or applied.
I would respond to the third assertion by stating that the chief source of unity in the Church is and will always be Christ manifesting himself through the local Bishop and the Holy Eucharist. Any other Bishop could only serve to protect and guard this unity, not create it. Such are the beliefs of the ancient Orthodox Church. And we have no problem in affirming that the Orthodox Roman See was the guardian of the Orthodox Faith and of the true catholicity and oneness of the early Church. However, it’s equally true that Orthodox Rome cannot perform this function, if her Bishop, the Pope of Rome, has fallen to heresy, thus leaving this See empty. It is an
accepted theological opinion in Catholicism that Popes can fall into heresy, thus leaving the Roman See empty for an indefinite period of time and causing the faithful to maintain their Faith against such an erring Pope and waiting for his true successor. This is the stance of Orthodoxy and it is justified in its principles by the very Orthodox theological opinion of Catholicism, herself.
I hope this has caused you to rethink the quotes you’ve read. Every quote has a historical and theological context that must be taken into account, and as you can see there are several interesting historical and theological facts that greatly mitigate the effect that these quotes are often claimed to have. I’m praying for you, Marina.
God bless,
Adam
(CAF moderators: I hope this post hasn’t violated the purpose of this forum. As you can notice, I limit my apologetic interactions to the Non-Catholic religions forum. However, since this post was moved from its original context on that forum and I had planned to respond to it there, I decided to respond to it here. If this is a problem, please alert me and I will post my response elsewhere. Thanks.)
