Papal Infallibility in the Orthodox Churches

[Reuben_J]

But the fact is, it is the Pope just choosing to do so right now. Clearly stated in the dogma is that he doesn’t really need the approval of anyone else. It is like a King who is an absolute monarch. He doesn’t need to ask anyone for their opinion, but if he wants to he can. But that doesn’t relinquish his authority to decide and rule unilaterally. Pastor Aeternus is clear that the Pope can declare things infallibly without need of any other bishop’s approval. If we he wants to go through a conciliar process, nothing is stopping him from doing so. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have the power to do things unilaterally. He does, and it is as clear as day.

Yes, in principle he does not need approval from anybody because he is the head of the Church. But that is not how it works in reality. The office of the Pope is not a Pope alone but the whole Church where he has the College of the cardinals, bishop and the theologians to assist him.

You would mislead yourself if you think that the papacy is merely the Pope. Whenever there is a Council where important decision is to be made, all the cardinals and the bishops if need be, have to attend and deliberate under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. The Pope may function as a Chairman, in a layman term. Of course he can decide but it is impossible he decides on his own against all those bishops’ voices.

The Church has a head, it is Christ. Even in Peter’s Epistles he has talked about the stones that build up the Church, and he equates himself as a stone like all other. The only unique stone is the cornerstone that is Christ.

Right. The head of the Church is Christ and no Catholics or Popes dispute that for Christ is the foundation stone of the Church. But the human head of the Church is the successor of St. Peter.

My point is, Christ gave Peter the keys not as an office, but because of Peter’s own profession of faith. We just install men to the office of the Papacy without regard for their own faith, believing that the Holy Spirit will just take care of that part.

It is certainly an office. The key does not end with Peter or the apostles. It is always the office – the reason why Judas was replaced. It was not Judas per se that was replaced but the office that he held as an apostle. It is not men that we install in the Papacy but a Pope.

As we can see with Paul’s admonishment of Peter, Peter wasn’t always perfect. And as we can see with the history of Popes who are heretical and/or immoral, one who occupies the office isn’t exactly protected from error. We always say, “but the Pope will be prevented from teaching error.” How do we know that? So far we have accepted everything the Pope teaches as free from error. But again as history has proven, there were times that many bishops have taught in error (including the Pope) and it wasn’t until a long time after before people figure out that there were errors. And worse, we’re not even allowed to question the Pope.

That’s the beauty of it. Peter was not perfect. Had he been perfect, then no one can take his place. You brought a pertinent point even if your understanding is different. The fact that Peter was reprimanded speaks exactly the position of the Pope. People disagree with the Pope many times. It is not true that the people or the clergy cannot disagree with him.

Catholics don’t say “but the Pope will be prevented from teaching error.” That’s clearly stereotyping the Pope. The Pope can err. He cannot when speaking Ex Cathedra or from the chair of St. Peter. And when he speaks Ex Cathedra, it is always on belief that is already existing in the Church and not anything new for there is no new revelation after Christ. Speaking Ex Cathedra is a beautiful way for the protection of the Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

No, the proper approach is to look at the entire history. We can’t just take a snapshot of history and say it works. That is not fair. Not only with the Papacy but with everything. There is a fundamental problem with imperial power being given to a bishop, whether directly like the Pope, or like in the times in the history of the Orthodox where the Patriarch and the local ruler were scratching each other’s back.

You can’t do that if you want the proper knowledge of what a Pope should be. It is a fact that many times along history the Church was hijacked by people who had personal interest and agenda. The Papacy was vulnerable and sometimes not protected against such people, politics and governments. So it was not an ideal situation to really judge on what a Pope is.

Today the Papacy is more protected because of transparency due to modern communication and technology.

In any case, it is really a miracle despite all adversities the institution of the papacy still survives today and couldn’t even better, true to the promise of Christ, that the Gate of Hell will not prevail against it. This is where we should measure the truth and the standard of the office of the Pope.

I am sorry but if you want better understanding, you have to let go of such language like ‘imperial’ because that is a wrong disposition to understand the office of the pope.

They can’t be removed anymore. The Pope today cannot be judged by anyone on earth, even by all the bishops of the Church. That changed over the turn of the First Millennium into the Second when the Pope declared to the rulers of Western Europe that he is above them and above all earthly authority, even bishops. Only God can judge him. I forgot the name of the Papal Bull, but there is a Papal Bull for that.

There is nothing to judge the pope about in an ideal situation because there would be nothing wrong that a Pope can do. He just would not be able to do that. The institution wouldn’t allow it. That’s why you should look at the Vatican today to see how an ideal papacy in motion.

A Papal Bull means nothing too if it is not in accordance to the law of faith and moral of God. And they are definitely fallible.

So if he can’t be judge, how do we declare him a heretic? How do we depose him?

You think that way because you have not moved your paradigm. It does not work that way. A heretic is a heretic and heretic Pope is not followed today. So that means the Church is bigger than a heretic Pope. The questions are hypothetical and not practical or realistic.

 

[Reuben_J]

You would mislead yourself if you think that the papacy is merely the Pope. Whenever there is a Council where important decision is to be made, all the cardinals and the bishops if need be, have to attend and deliberate under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. The Pope may function as a Chairman, in a layman term. Of course he can decide but it is impossible he decides on his own against all those bishops’ voices.

A good example is the Vatican II Council where it took three years for the three thousand Cardinals, Bishops and theologians to deliberate under prayerful condition and allowed the Holy Spirit to move them so that they could come out with statements for the Church. When there was disagreement they would meet again, and again, and again and pray for the Holy Spirit to give them wisdom until they were satisfied with the final decision. And the Pope had to abide with that and gave his assent.

 

[Reuben_J]

Of course he does. Motu Proprio means “on his own impulse”. How many Motu Prorpio’s have the Pope issued? Summorum Pontificum is fairly recent, and bishops cannot question it. In fact, the laity are told that if the bishops do not follow Summorum Pontificum, the laity has a right to appeal to Rome directly.

I missed these posts earlier on.

These are the things that the Pope does as the head of the Church. When he does that he acts pretty much like your local bishop does to the diocese except that he is the head bishops of the Catholic Church all over the world. He will set program or declare a year of faith, for example so that the 1.2 billion Catholics all over the world act in unity and do the same things together. For that is what it means being church. Not many churches can claim to have that today though.

So what’s the problem? It’s not like the Pope will issue new doctrines or dogmas at his whim and fancy and he would not do that on his own.

That is absolutely not true. Pastor Aeternus again is explicitly clear that the Pope has universal ordinary jurisdiction. And it also states that just because he doesn’t normally exercise it, it doesn’t mean he can’t. And just because you can’t cite in history when he did it, doesn’t mean he never had the authority (which I think is a complete copout and pathetic excuse to introduce NEW doctrine into the Church).

The Pope’s diocese is the diocese of Rome which is a diocese by itself. But this bishop is also the Pope so that make him has two two roles.

He has universal jurisdiction, for sure. That’s his job and role. What I am saying, he does not meddle in a local bishop’s affair. I am a Catholic all my life. I have a parish, an archdiocese actually, where my archbishop has two dioceses under him, both headed by a bishop. In theory my archbishop rules over his brother two bishops but in practice, the two bishops are pretty much autonomous in whatever they do in their respective diocese and there is nothing my archbishop can do about it. My archbishop’s function would be to coordinate the activities and program for all the dioceses under him, and that also when applies.

Similarly the Pope does not interfere with the local ordinaries in matters pertaining to their dioceses.

I don’t see any problem with this. After all we need a figure leader and the Pope is one.

Again, Pastor Aeternus is clear that the Pope doesn’t need anybody else’s permission or agreement. If he seeks them, it is because he decided to do that, not because he must do that. It is clear that he does not.

That’s right. He does not need anybody else’s permission but that is not what he does when deal with major decision, as explained. He can do as he like with his own pet projects, so to speak, or send out encyclicals. This is no problem. That’s how he exercises his gift of leadership as shepherd to the flock.

However, he does not proclaim new laws, or doctrines or dogmas as he likes. There is another process for these.

Ultimately, what must be understood, despite all the terms and the definitions of what the Pope is, he has to be faithful to the Lord and does what is right. All those definitions mean nothing if he does not do what is right. The institution itself makes sure that happens. A man of God also would not deviate from the way of the Lord, and we expect no less from the Pope. A few bad Popes in the past no doubt has tarnished the image of the papacy but any reasonable person would know that those abuses do happen when selfish men follow their own selfish agenda and not of the Lord. And this can happen to anybody even our local priest. Thanks God, the Church is protected by the grace and the promise of Jesus himself. The Gate of Hell will not prevail against it. So far it has survived for more than 2000 years and is still going on strong. That should be a testimony by itself that this institution is set up by Jesus and for Jesus.

God bless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, in principle he does not need approval from anybody because he is the head of the Church.

That is the problem because he is not the head of the Church. Again, Christ is the head of the Church.

But that is not how it works in reality. The office of the Pope is not a Pope alone but the whole Church where he has the College of the cardinals, bishop and the theologians to assist him.

See that is the problem. Other bishops are not merely the assistants of the Pope. The Church is not a corporation where the Pope is the CEO, and everyone else are just employees of the CEO helping him run the organization. This is the biggest problem of that analogy where the Pope is viewed as the head rather than Christ. If Christ is the CEO, then that is acceptable. Our own body, I heard one quote in the past that our entire body is just a system to support the brain and carry it around. That is why Christ is the only head. We are all just the parts that support this body.

You would mislead yourself if you think that the papacy is merely the Pope. Whenever there is a Council where important decision is to be made, all the cardinals and the bishops if need be, have to attend and deliberate under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. The Pope may function as a Chairman, in a layman term. Of course he can decide but it is impossible he decides on his own against all those bishops’ voices.

If need be. That itself is a dangerous term. You just confirmed that the bishops are optional and needed only when necessary. As opposed to being a permanent necessity.

Right. The head of the Church is Christ and no Catholics or Popes dispute that for Christ is the foundation stone of the Church. But the human head of the Church is the successor of St. Peter.

There is no human head. No body has two heads except a monster.

It is certainly an office. The key does not end with Peter or the apostles. It is always the office – the reason why Judas was replaced. It was not Judas per se that was replaced but the office that he held as an apostle. It is not men that we install in the Papacy but a Pope.

It definitely did not end with the Apostles, but someone doesn’t just instantly assume such degree of authority and power just by election if Peter himself was not elected. How come Popes are elected? The Apostles did not elect Peter.

That’s the beauty of it. Peter was not perfect. Had he been perfect, then no one can take his place. You brought a pertinent point even if your understanding is different. The fact that Peter was reprimanded speaks exactly the position of the Pope. People disagree with the Pope many times. It is not true that the people or the clergy cannot disagree with him.

People disagree with the Pope and today, they are called rebels and bad Catholics. Paul didn’t rebel from Peter. Today, those who disagree with the Pope are put in a questionable position.

Catholics don’t say “but the Pope will be prevented from teaching error.” That’s clearly stereotyping the Pope. The Pope can err. He cannot when speaking Ex Cathedra or from the chair of St. Peter. And when he speaks Ex Cathedra, it is always on belief that is already existing in the Church and not anything new for there is no new revelation after Christ. Speaking Ex Cathedra is a beautiful way for the protection of the Church.

And when is the distinction of when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra or not? If the Pope can err in everything else, what makes him inerrant when speaking infallibly?

 

[ConstantineTG]

You can’t do that if you want the proper knowledge of what a Pope should be. It is a fact that many times along history the Church was hijacked by people who had personal interest and agenda. The Papacy was vulnerable and sometimes not protected against such people, politics and governments. So it was not an ideal situation to really judge on what a Pope is.

Of course you can. If you want to know if one thing works or not, you have to look at the complete picture. A broken (analog) clock tells the right time twice a day. Can we say the clock works because it was correct in telling the time those two times and disregard the 1438 other minutes of the day?

Today the Papacy is more protected because of transparency due to modern communication and technology.

It is this same excuse the liberals are using to say we should accept this and that because we didn’t know in the First Century this and that so we thought things were sins back then but they are not anymore today. Seriously, if the Apostles who spoke to Jesus directly did not know something by Pentecost when they were filled with the Holy Spirit, how can we hope to know more than they do today?

In any case, it is really a miracle despite all adversities the institution of the papacy still survives today and couldn’t even better, true to the promise of Christ, that the Gate of Hell will not prevail against it. This is where we should measure the truth and the standard of the office of the Pope.

There are other religions that have existed longer than Christianity that still exists today. I do believe in the promise of Christ, but I think we have liberally applied that saying on so many things without actually understanding what is meant. In fact if you look at the history of the Papacy, there isn’t even a guarantee that today’s Papacy is the same Papacy from the one in the Council of Nicaea. Just because we call it the same thing, doesn’t mean it is.

I am sorry but if you want better understanding, you have to let go of such language like ‘imperial’ because that is a wrong disposition to understand the office of the pope.

And how else would you describe it?

There is nothing to judge the pope about in an ideal situation because there would be nothing wrong that a Pope can do. He just would not be able to do that. The institution wouldn’t allow it. That’s why you should look at the Vatican today to see how an ideal papacy in motion.

History has proven otherwise. We should stop idealizing the Papacy, he is human after all like us. And history has proven that he can commit error and sin. The Papacy is not a magical office that grants the one who occupies it superhuman abilities . The sooner we are honest about this, the better it is for the dialogue between any other Christian group.

A Papal Bull means nothing too if it is not in accordance to the law of faith and moral of God. And they are definitely fallible.

Sure. But that particular one didn’t give others the choice. Again, proven by history.

You think that way because you have not moved your paradigm. It does not work that way. A heretic is a heretic and heretic Pope is not followed today. So that means the Church is bigger than a heretic Pope. The questions are hypothetical and not practical or realistic.

But how do we know a Pope is heretic if he can infallibly declare by himself without the consent of the Church that his heresy is dogma, and when no one else on earth can question him or judge him?

 

[ConstantineTG]

A good example is the Vatican II Council where it took three years for the three thousand Cardinals, Bishops and theologians to deliberate under prayerful condition and allowed the Holy Spirit to move them so that they could come out with statements for the Church. When there was disagreement they would meet again, and again, and again and pray for the Holy Spirit to give them wisdom until they were satisfied with the final decision. And the Pope had to abide with that and gave his assent.

That is how councils always were in the past. But the difference today is the Pope could have just come up with everything by himself and that would still be fine. The conciliar nature of the current Catholic Church is more of a political move and appeasing the other bishops, making them feel they have a say in things. It is not a necessity, like in the First Millennium, that they be there to speak up, be heard, and actually have an effect on the council.

 

[Reuben_J]

That is the problem because he is not the head of the Church. Again, Christ is the head of the Church.

We have arrived at an impasse here, so ok, I will let this go.

See that is the problem. Other bishops are not merely the assistants of the Pope. The Church is not a corporation where the Pope is the CEO, and everyone else are just employees of the CEO helping him run the organization. This is the biggest problem of that analogy where the Pope is viewed as the head rather than Christ. If Christ is the CEO, then that is acceptable. Our own body, I heard one quote in the past that our entire body is just a system to support the brain and carry it around. That is why Christ is the only head. We are all just the parts that support this body.

I never say this. I guess you misunderstand what I said. Where did I imply that the Church is a CEO?

One thing for sure, that the papacy is an office. It certainly does not function like your normal corporation today.

You have misled again when you said “the Pope is viewed as the head rather than Christ”. If you keep doing this, I don’t think I can carry on this dialogue with you. I specifically and categorically said that Christ is the head of the Church, the foundation on which the Church is built. The Pope is the human head of the Church.

There is an earthly church structure made up of human beings on earth. No one can deny that. If there is no leadership, then there would be no direction as it will be a free for all. How do you think the 1.2 billion Catholics can still move on as one body if there is no head of the Church on earth?

If need be. That itself is a dangerous term. You just confirmed that the bishops are optional and needed only when necessary. As opposed to being a permanent necessity.

To you it may seem dangerous but it is not if we have faith in that God will protect His Church. Yes, not a permanent necessity, if you put it that way. Do not expect that the Pope would call a council of his cardinals even if he has to give notice for the garbage man to collect the trash from his quarters.

There are different types of issues that are of different in importance that the Pope handles everyday. Most office work and personal decisions, he would decide himself if he want to. But the big ones, like doctrines or council, he would never do that but make use of the institution of the Church.

An analogy. Barrack Obama can issue any circular by himself. He also can sign any memorandum prepared by his chief of staff and considered it as his own. But when there is major issue, like the Cuban Crises, he would discuss it with his secretaries and generals and seek their advice. It will become official after he assents to it.

Similarly to the Pope. So there is no danger. But I am grateful if you can recall one example of such danger that actually happened in an ideal papacy.

There is no human head. No body has two heads except a monster.

I object to that.

It definitely did not end with the Apostles, but someone doesn’t just instantly assume such degree of authority and power just by election if Peter himself was not elected. How come Popes are elected? The Apostles did not elect Peter.

If one look at the election of the Pope, it is not mere human election but by the power, anointing and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Unless of course, if you do not believe that the Holy Spirit is always with us when we come together in prayer and invoke his name.

People disagree with the Pope and today, they are called rebels and bad Catholics. Paul didn’t rebel from Peter. Today, those who disagree with the Pope are put in a questionable position.

Not necessary. Along the centuries, such disagreement is not uncommon and when the laities and the clergies and the religious spoke out to the Pope, sometimes wonders could happen and the Church experienced great renewal if the Pope listened to their voices.

Some examples: The petition of Catherine of Sienna to the Pope or only recently, the petition of sister Anna, a nun of the late nineteenth century when she called of the Pope for the renewal of the Church. Or even Fr. Raneiro Cantalamessa, a Jesuit priest of the eighties calling John Paul II to listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit and to allow the people to have freedom to exercise them. The examples are endless in the work of the Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

And when is the distinction of when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra or not? If the Pope can err in everything else, what makes him inerrant when speaking infallibly?

Ok. There is not many times when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra which non-Catholics make extremely big fuss about. Perhaps three or four times during the 2000 years of the Church existence. And this is merely an affirmation on what have been believed by the Church and not something new. For example, the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra when he refuted the heretics by declaring that Jesus is both man and divine.
The Pope would teach, and like I said, he would be just like your local bishop in his teaching. We obey our bishop out of our love and gratitude that he feed us, his sheep, and therefore we try to follow his teaching. But this teaching is fallible though generally it is hard to imagine that a pope would even err here but nevertheless it is fallible.

Of course you can. If you want to know if one thing works or not, you have to look at the complete picture. A broken (analog) clock tells the right time twice a day. Can we say the clock works because it was correct in telling the time those two times and disregard the 1438 other minutes of the day?

So do not look at where the abuse of the Church were and tell me, “Hey, I gotcha, the papacy is wrong.” Which churches do not make mistakes in their lives? So one have to look when the papacy is functioning properly and judge it there. The ultimate comfort in this is to believe that Jesus will protect his Church, whenever and whatever the hurdles it has to pass through. The Church will prevail ultimately. One has to have hope in that.

It is this same excuse the liberals are using to say we should accept this and that because we didn’t know in the First Century this and that so we thought things were sins back then but they are not anymore today. Seriously, if the Apostles who spoke to Jesus directly did not know something by Pentecost when they were filled with the Holy Spirit, how can we hope to know more than they do today?

Can you give example, if you have any, where the papacy can go wrong today?

I do not understand what you meant here. For the most part, the papacy had done well in strengthening and leading the Church. We admit at certain time in the dark past, due to political struggle and human self interest, this office had been abused. This has nothing to do with Pentecost and nobody can see that far. The trials and the difficulties that the Church will go through were prophesized, so I am not surprised. We would, if the Church is defeated but that, she is not.

There are other religions that have existed longer than Christianity that still exists today. I do believe in the promise of Christ, but I think we have liberally applied that saying on so many things without actually understanding what is meant. In fact if you look at the history of the Papacy, there isn’t even a guarantee that today’s Papacy is the same Papacy from the one in the Council of Nicaea. Just because we call it the same thing, doesn’t mean it is.

Of course, my friend. We are Christianity! :thumbsup:Tell me if you can find any office or institution that is still intact that is as old as the papacy today. For this miracle, one only needs to go to the Vatican and witness the collection of artifacts, documents and even the remains of the saints that went before us right back to the early Christians. One can only marvel when one walks into the Vatican and witness how Church history comes alive. BTW, have you been to the Vatican? And see for yourself. What I tell you, well, is what I tell you only.

And how else would you describe it?

‘Imperial’ comes with an ugly connotation if you’re a democrat (I’m just kidding). If you think that the pope is like a despot or an absolute monarchy, then it is not the right word to use. Do have a little respect please, even if you do not believe in it. Consider those who believe.

History has proven otherwise. We should stop idealizing the Papacy, he is human after all like us. And history has proven that he can commit error and sin. The Papacy is not a magical office that grants the one who occupies it superhuman abilities . The sooner we are honest about this, the better it is for the dialogue between any other Christian group.

So what is the problem? I have said all that.

Sure. But that particular one didn’t give others the choice. Again, proven by history.

So it is a mistake. Can you cite example too.

 

[Reuben_J]

But how do we know a Pope is heretic if he can infallibly declare by himself without the consent of the Church that his heresy is dogma, and when no one else on earth can question him or judge him?

It is not difficult to pick out a heretic. If not, you are certainly under-estimating the collective wisdom of the 1.2 billion Catholics world wide – her clergies, religious, theologians, scholars and the laities. But this is just hypothetical because there had not been any heretic holding the office of the papacy for a very long time.

No dogmas had been declared by the Pope unilaterally as far as I can remember when the papacy was functioning normally.

You put too much worry on the so-called dogmas though. In reality, the Church does not need any new dogmas. Everything is already in place. Most Catholic churches would go about their lives normally whether there is dogma or not. Some don’t even think the Pope even exists and they still can be good Catholics.

What such dogmas are you worrying about? Because the way you say it, it is as if the Pope is in the habit of issuing dogmas every other day. Well, he does not, my friend.

That is how councils always were in the past. But the difference today is the Pope could have just come up with everything by himself and that would still be fine. The conciliar nature of the current Catholic Church is more of a political move and appeasing the other bishops, making them feel they have a say in things. It is not a necessity, like in the First Millennium, that they be there to speak up, be heard, and actually have an effect on the council.

No such thing as the Pope comes up with a council by himself. I challenge you to give example.

I have given you the example of the Vatican II Council. Do you like the way it is done or not; or if not which part that you do not agree with?

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben J:

Ok. There is not many times when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra which non-Catholics make extremely big fuss about. Perhaps three or four times during the 2000 years of the Church existence. And this is merely an affirmation on what have been believed by the Church and not something new. For example, the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra when he refuted the heretics by declaring that Jesus is both man and divine.

Contd…
Today after many hundreds years, Christians take for granted that Jesus is both man and divine. Can you imagine if the Pope did not stand out like a beacon, a light to speak out distinctively to protect his Lord’s beloved Church and her belief and doctrine ? Can you imagine if the heretic’s offensive was not stopped then and nobody has the authority to speak for the Church?

Today it is still the same. Though not always infallible, but the Pope is very often a lone figure against the tide of secularity, relativity and liberalism, and put his head on the pedestal by doing so and speaking the truth of the Lord against the enemies of the Church. Where no one dare, the Pope is that lonely figure and continues to do so. We the flock somehow is protected as long as he continues to take up that responsibility to hold the truth. This is owing to the office of the papacy and not just the man.

Very often we look at the mistakes of the Pope, which is quite reasonable, but there are more good that the Pope does as a leader for his Church than the bad.

God bless.

Reuben.

 

[jinc1019]

Contd…
Today after many hundreds years, Christians take for granted that Jesus is both man and divine. Can you imagine if the Pope did not stand out like a beacon, a light to speak out distinctively to protect his Lord’s beloved Church and her belief and doctrine ? Can you imagine if the heretic’s offensive was not stopped then and nobody has the authority to speak for the Church?

Today it is still the same. Though not always infallible, but the Pope is very often a lone figure against the tide of secularity, relativity and liberalism, and put his head on the pedestal by doing so and speaking the truth of the Lord against the enemies of the Church. Where no one dare, the Pope is that lonely figure and continues to do so. We the flock somehow is protected as long as he continues to take up that responsibility to hold the truth. This is owing to the office of the papacy and not just the man.

Very often we look at the mistakes of the Pope, which is quite reasonable, but there are more good that the Pope does as a leader for his Church than the bad.

God bless.

Reuben.

I don’t discount that the Pope has done great things for Christianity, but the poor behavior of many past Popes is one reason there was a Reformation! Also, the Orthodox Church, which has existed for 2,000 years, has done so without the need of the Pope and have largely kept their doctrines the same.

 

[truthseeker32]

I don’t discount that the Pope has done great things for Christianity, but the poor behavior of many past Popes is one reason there was a Reformation! Also, the Orthodox Church, which has existed for 2,000 years, has done so without the need of the Pope and have largely kept their doctrines the same.

1. Please name these many popes. If anything, it is amazing how few of the hundreds of popes, past and present, have been bad.
2. Your statement that the Orthodox Church existed for 2,000 years without the Pope assumes that the papacy didn’t exist until after the schism. If the papacy has indeed existed since Christ entrusted the keys to St. Peter, then the Orthodox faith has only existed without the pope for the less than 1000 years since the schism. In other words, your objection only stands if you can demonstrate that the papacy wasn’t present prior to the schism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

1. Please name these many popes. If anything, it is amazing how few of the hundreds of popes, past and present, have been bad.

We are all sinners. Every Pope did something wrong to varying degrees.

1. Your statement that the Orthodox Church existed for 2,000 years without the Pope assumes that the papacy didn’t exist until after the schism. If the papacy has indeed existed since Christ entrusted the keys to St. Peter, then the Orthodox faith has only existed without the pope for the less than 1000 years since the schism. In other words, your objection only stands if you can demonstrate that the papacy wasn’t present prior to the schism.

Even when East and West were in communion, the East was never at any time under the jurisdiction of the Pope. If you read the Canons of the First Ecumenical Council, some territory was given to the (then) Metropolitan of Alexandria. And this was contrasted to the provinces that was given to Rome in some earlier council. So it is clear that at this point of history there was no concept of universal jurisdiction by the Pope. They were only in fact starting to organize into archdioceses and were a long ways off from organizing into Patriarchates.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t discount that the Pope has done great things for Christianity, but the poor behavior of many past Popes is one reason there was a Reformation!

Thank you for your comment as an OP. I am beginning to worry if I had spoken too much and perhaps hijacking the thread.

I have spoken at length about the Pope and the office of the Pope.

You brought a pertinent point. You also seem to put the blame entirely on the reigning pope as a reason for the split (reformation). An honest assessment of what lead to the reformation and the eventual formation of the Protestant churches would find that this was not the fault of the Pope alone. In any case there are also split away from the Orthodox Church so I cannot see your point.

Martin Luther would have been a Catholic saint had he stayed in the Church and work from within. But he did what he did until finally what led to the excommunication.

As have been mentioned, there were many great leaders of the Church who work from within and renewed the Church. The answer is never to leave the Church. But you also have to acknowledge it was not just Martin Luther but the whole politics of the time that was involved. Luther had become a pawn for those who had higher design in Germany and Rome. It was a point of no return when politic set in. I will not go into this but it is not so simplistic like you say that the reformation was due to a Pope with poor behavior.

Similarly with the Schism. Why do you think there was the schism? Do you honestly think it was about the differences between the Pope and the patriarchs? Sure it was but politic played a great part in it too. The fact is, bad blood between the East and the West was never completely healed. The sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade was the final straw that forever seal the enmity between the two people. Pope John Paul II did try to mend the wound caused about by the dark history of our people.

It did not help too when the Orthodox Churches were always structured in such way that represent the nationality of the people. The tendency to take side became more prominent because of that.

The Orthodox Church do not deny the Pope; they admit the primacy of St Peter. The dispute is how far that primacy has jurisdiction over them. So the institution of the Pope is not something out of the blue but had been accepted since the beginning of Christianity. People realize that and today we see many from the Orthodox Church form new Eastern Catholic Churches to be in communion with Rome.

Also, the Orthodox Church, which has existed for 2,000 years, has done so without the need of the Pope and have largely kept their doctrines the same.

And was frozen. Since the last Ecumenical Council (Nicea II in 787) that was recognized by the Orthodox before the schism, about 1300 years have passed by. There were lots that have happened during that time. Chemical weapon, mass weapon of destruction, stem cell, birth control, same sex marriage, advance in medical technology like euthanasia, etc., which were unthinkable in 787 AD but have profoundly changed our lives today, socially and spiritually. The Orthodox have no way to deal with this officially other than the discretion of the local bishops. The Protestants who are outside the jurisdiction of the Pope start making and interpreting their own laws and as a result thousand of churches are formed respectively.

That is not exactly how the Church should work. The Church should be able to address the issue brought about by the changing of time that affect the lives of the believers. For that the Church needs a visible leader who can protect the flock and bring them together.

The doctrine is always the same so I don’t see any issue on this. Unless you are meaning to say that, like ConstantineTG, the Catholic Church today is not what it was before which I strongly object to as a dishonest slander.

 

[Rawb]

Chemical weapon, mass weapon of destruction, stem cell, birth control, same sex marriage, advance in medical technology like euthanasia, etc., which were unthinkable in 787 AD but have profoundly changed our lives today, socially and spiritually. The Orthodox have no way to deal with this officially other than the discretion of the local bishops.

No way to deal with it? This is completely false. We can trust our local bishops to uphold the faith and teach us correct theology. Do you not trust your bishop to uphold the catholic faith? If you can so trust your bishop why should we not be able to trust ours?

Besides, you really need a council to determine how a Christian responds to euthanasia? You need to call all the bishops of the world together to figure out just what we should say about newfangled weapons and stems cells or same sex marriage? The faith answered those questions a long time ago. We already told you - a council is only called when there’s an issue at question for the entire church. The Orthodox Church has her answers to those questions, and has for thousands of years.

The Protestants who are outside the jurisdiction of the Pope start making and interpreting their own laws and as a result thousand of churches are formed respectively.

Notice: this hasn’t happened in the Orthodox Church. Perhaps ask why that is? Protestants come from your tradition, not our own. I don’t see why you’re bringing up the practices of Protestants when talking about the practices of Orthodoxy.

That is not exactly how the Church should work.

That’s not how The Church does work.

The Church should be able to address the issue brought about by the changing of time that affect the lives of the believers.

Which The Orthodox Church does, compassionately, pastorally, and completely Traditionally.

For that the Church needs a visible leader who can protect the flock and bring them together.

 

[Ion]

I do believe that the Pope has became infallible in the Catholic church the moment the infallibility was declared; I think this results from the authority of the church, to bound or unbound. From the Orthodox point of view, it is a fact.

 

[Rawb]

I do believe that the Pope has became infallible in the Catholic church the moment the infallibility was declared; I think this results from the authority of the church, to bound or unbound. From the Orthodox point of view, it is a fact.

This is not Orthodox teaching.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, that’s news to me, and we’re pretty big on the Pope over here in the Coptic Orthodox Church. :ehh:

 

[Tradycja]

And when is the distinction of when the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra or not? If the Pope can err in everything else, what makes him inerrant when speaking infallibly?

The Holy Spirit.