Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Mickey]

Well at least there is nothing to discredit this response.

I do not waste my time responding to vitriol and lies. I can only chuckle and move on.

 

[Mickey]

Here’s what Pope Gregory’s predecessor did when the Bishop of Constantinople tried to use it.

Again I must chuckle when the RCC apologists post numerous quotes referring to the chair of St Peter and Rome’s orthodoxy. None of these quotes can prove that the bishop of Rome held some position of supremacy over all other bishops and the charism of infallibility. Popes in the early undivided Church never had the “power” to over ride an Ecumenical council.

You can keep showing qoutes, but they are not proving your position.

But we must not forget the most important words from St Gregory’s quote: “For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally… Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.”

 

[John214]

tdgesq,

If only one ECF, probably Tertullian since he is the earliest to give an historical account of a Pope exercising unilateral authority.

You may have referred to it earlier, but could you give the quote and source so we can all see it? (Perhaps the strongest quote you feel from Tertullian)

Regarding the legitimacy of the Pope:

I was asking in regards to how we could know a Pope is legitimate ex pre facto. For instance, suppose one were living during the time of an anti-Pope and he ratified a council or spoke ex cathedra. Is there any fail proof way for a person to know, at the time, if a Pope is legitimate or not?

I still think Cyprian owed him obedience on that point though, especially since Stephen was right. It may explain Cyprian softening his second recension, but I don’t know the time periods involved. I would have to look. It still looks to me like he didn’t change his mind as to the Pope’s position in the second version. In any case, bishops have opposed the Pope before when he has defined doctrine. It is not a matter of mental illness as much as disobedience.

I don’t know, I suppose it could have been merely disobedience, but if we are citing Cyprian as a source to support the supremacy of the Pope then based upon his quick disobedience we could either say he didn’t really believe it to begin with, or else he bases his positions on rash thinking (which would discredit his earlier statement as also possibly having been rash).

As long as you understand its limits. No less or more awesome than have a bunch of bishops doing the same. And what do they do? They don’t gather in assembly and throw darts to determine what is going to be doctrine and what isn’t. They meet and confer for decades on end sometimes, debating each fine theological point and then attempting to come to the truth. Our God is one of reason as well as faith.

Blue: But the Pope is not limited in the same way as a bunch of Bishops, you have already said that Councils are not valid unless the Pope approves of them, and even all Bishops (without the Pope) are still fallible. The Pope is infallible, he cannot err, all other Bishops combined can. If you are willing to deny infallibility or else give it to all other bishops then we can say it is no more or less.

Red: But you already said that what the Pope says cannot possibly be wrong, if the Early Church when faced with Arianism, had simply asked the Pope to speak ex cathedra on the issue as to whether the nature of God was as the Arians said or not, then even if the Pope knew nothing more than the issue, he could have immediately and infallibly given the correct answer. And if it was known (as you have stated) then only mentally challenged bishops would have gone against the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

SeaGreen: This is not to say that the Pope does not have to think, it is to say that if infallibility really works as you have described then, when deciding matters of faith, he can always give the right answer regardless of knowledge. If his answer is contingent upon right knowledge, then he is no better than any other intelligent Bishop.

Look at how many canons are contained in Trent, or in Vatican I, or in Florence. Could the Pope do that by himself? He needs their assistance and advice.

So you are saying that the Pope’s infalliblity is limited to simple answers? He is not able to give a complex infallible explanation of an issue? (I really don’t know)

 

[John214]

tdgesq continued,

It would be nearly unthinkable for a Pope to make an infallible declaration with no support from his bishops or scripture or the ECFs. I know of no such instance.

Unthinkable? Certainly it must be equally possible. Otherwise we have some watered down version of infallibility which goes something like this, “When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, only after having consulted Bishops, Scripture, modern Sholarly opinion, and a variety of other sources, he is able to speak infallibly”

Is this the definition of infallibility?

Yes, at least one that hasn’t been infallibly declared. Preservation from error is guaranteed in that instance.

I am having difficulty understanding how a fallible source can change the mind of an infallible source in a matter of truth.

He would not be well enough informed to make a rational decision.

So we are saying the ability to delare something infallibly is contingent upon information?

If you do not see the logic in this approach, then I don’t believe I can do anymore. The entire college of RCC bishops and the bishops of the 23 Eastern Catholic Churches obviously do not see their role as useless. They do not believe they are engaging in an exercise in futility when in love they come to inform the Roman Pontiff of the merits of their position on important matters of doctrine, which they ask the Pope to confirm. They are all seeking the truth together.

1. If the Pope is not infallible, then their informing him is not useless, but if he is, and they really believe it, then they must also fully believe that nothing they say will alter the outcome (unless truth molds to what the Pope says)
2. I do see some logic in this approach, perhaps to allow the Pope to understand what Bishops think (not to change doctrine, but to maybe understand what changes need to be made or something of this nature, administration).

I am going to be honest here, I have some difficulties with the doctrine of Infallibility. I can understand the Pope as being the Universal head of the Church, and possibly can see how his ratification of a council is the only way one can know if it is true, but ex cathedra infallibility is hard to understand, and makes ecumenical councils seem superfluous.

 

[steve_b]

I’ve asked if you can present the words of the ‘apology’ because to the best of my knowledge the Pope did not really apologise for anything. I suspect you know this also.
You seem reluctant to post the actual ‘apology’. Since we don’t really know if it was an apology or not I am unable to answer your leading question. Its like me asking you if you still beat your wife. It assumes as ‘fact’ something which has not actually been demonstrated.

John

Did this not happen? (from purely a secular source)

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E5D71138F936A35756C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Bartholomew I, (link previously provided) AND you can see Christidoulous also accepted the pope’s apology.

 

[steve_b]

Again I must chuckle when the RCC apologists post numerous quotes referring to the chair of St Peter and Rome’s orthodoxy. None of these quotes can prove that the bishop of Rome held some position of supremacy over all other bishops and the charism of infallibility. Popes in the early undivided Church never had the “power” to over ride an Ecumenical council.

You can keep showing qoutes, but they are not proving your position.

But we must not forget the most important words from St Gregory’s quote: “For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally… Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.”

Let’s look at it in context. (emphasis mine)

:
Your Blessedness has also been careful to declare that you do not now make use of proud titles, which have sprung from a root of vanity, in writing to certain persons, and you address me saying, As you have commanded. This word, command, I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I did not, then, command, but was desirous of indicating what seemed to be profitable. Yet I do not find that your Blessedness has been willing to remember perfectly this very thing that I brought to your recollection. For I said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind; and lo, in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.
And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors . And yet not one of them would ever use this title, that, while regarding the honour of all priests in this world, they might keep their own before Almighty God. Lastly, while addressing to you the greeting which is due, I beg you to deign to remember me in your holy prayers to the end that the Lord for your intercessions may absolve me from the bands of my sins, since my own merits may not avail me.

As I read this, Gregory is a very humble man. He says he knows who he is, he doesn’t need to be reminded of it with titles and previous councils and ECF’s. And I see him taking a most gracious approach to his office and the office of others. Must be why he’s called “the Great”, although if you tried to call him that when he was alive, he would probably deride the title.

 

[Mickey]

As I read this, Gregory is a very humble man.

Yes.

He says he knows who he is

Yes.

he doesn’t need to be reminded of it with titles and previous councils and ECF’s

That is because previous councils and ECF’s would not have told him that he was a supreme pontiff with infallibility–no such thing existed.

And I see him taking a most gracious approach to his office and the office of others.

Yes.

Must be why he’s called “the Great”

He truly was a great saint.

 

[clmowry]

:nope:

See tdgesq’s previous response to this quote (among other things).

Mickey;3744410:

But we must not forget the most important words from St Gregory’s quote: “For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally… Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.”

 

[Mickey]

See tdgesq’s previous response.

Very weak indeed!

Good ol’ New advent–that bastion of orthodoxy!

 

[tdgesq]

Very weak indeed!

Good ol’ New advent–that bastion of orthodoxy!

Those are the Epistles written by Pope Gregory, not an article written by New Advent. Lol! You apparently have never read his works. Would you like the same citations to CCEL.org instead? Unbelievable.

 

[Mickey]

Those are the Epistles written by Pope Gregory, not an article written by New Advent.

I have all his works. And none of them are apologetics for a supreme infallible pontiff. LOL!

I see that you linked through Newadvent. Just having some fun with ya.

 

[tdgesq]

I have all his works. And none of them are apologetics for a supreme infallible pontiff. LOL!

I see that you linked through Newadvent. Just having some fun with ya.

You do? Then why did you omit the portions that you did? You must have known then that Gregory references Pope Pelagius writing to John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, annulling his council in the name of Peter, Prince of the Apostles. Do you agree with that action?

You brought up Pope Gregory, not me. Now deal with what he actually says. Do you agree that Pope Pelagius had the authority to annul the council called by John the Faster?

 

[Mickey]

Do you agree that Pope Pelagius had the authority to annul the council called by John the Faster?

Yes counselor, excellent subject for discussion.

I will get back to you–must leave the internet for a few days. We can discuss the nature of this “synod” and why it was called. We can talk about Pope Gregory’s disputes and misunderstandings with St John the Faster. We can even discus Pope Gregory’s modifications of Pope Pelagius’ strict regulations on clerical celibacy. It all sounds like fun! But I’m betting there is not a good case for supreme and infallible pontiffs in the early Church.

Ciao for now!

 

[tdgesq]

You may have referred to it earlier, but could you give the quote and source so we can all see it? (Perhaps the strongest quote you feel from Tertullian)

Actually John, this is what I said:

You ask a tough question. I don’t think I can point to just one. If I had to choose though, I’d say Matthew 16. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church, or the Rock upon which it is built. I see pre-Nicene Popes exercising authority on behalf of the Church. I see post-Nicene Popes (pre-schism) acting contrary to the EO pentarcy model, with Eastern Patriarchs acknowledging the authority of the Pope to do so. If only one ECF, probably Tertullian since he is the earliest to give an historical account of a Pope exercising unilateral authority.

The citations to Tertullian and other ECFs is here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3605641&postcount=206

No offense meant to you here, but I’m not interested in debating the Tertullian quote. I’ve done it multiple times and can link you to those if you wish.

Regarding the legitimacy of the Pope:

I was asking in regards to how we could know a Pope is legitimate ex pre facto. For instance, suppose one were living during the time of an anti-Pope and he ratified a council or spoke ex cathedra. Is there any fail proof way for a person to know, at the time, if a Pope is legitimate or not?

I do not know what you mean by “fail proof.” All inductive evidence is subject to differing degrees of certainty. I could ask if there is any fail proof way to know that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. I could ask if there is any fail proof way to know the apostolic lineage of any bishop or Patriarch, especially where there were pretenders or anti-Patriarchs. Neither the Catholics nor the EO doubt the apostolic lineage of the Bishop or Rome or the Patriarchs. You will have to tell me what you mean by “fail proof.”

I don’t know, I suppose it could have been merely disobedience, but if we are citing Cyprian as a source to support the supremacy of the Pope then based upon his quick disobedience we could either say he didn’t really believe it to begin with, or else he bases his positions on rash thinking (which would discredit his earlier statement as also possibly having been rash).

I’m not seeing the logic here. Because one is disobedient to authority (which most of us are at some point in our lives, if not everyone) does not mean that every historical truth to which we witness is incorrect. I have never seen a writing by Cyprian where he denies the historical truth of the Pope’s authority. As I said previously, Pope Stephen’s instruction to him about baptism by heretics was not an infallible decree.

Blue: But the Pope is not limited in the same way as a bunch of Bishops, you have already said that Councils are not valid unless the Pope approves of them, and even all Bishops (without the Pope) are still fallible. The Pope is infallible, he cannot err, all other Bishops combined can. If you are willing to deny infallibility or else give it to all other bishops then we can say it is no more or less.

I’m not following you here. What I can tell you is that every argument you’ve used against the need for the Pope to inform himself would apply equally to a council of bishops under the EO model.

Red: But you already said that what the Pope says cannot possibly be wrong, if the Early Church when faced with Arianism, had simply asked the Pope to speak ex cathedra on the issue as to whether the nature of God was as the Arians said or not, then even if the Pope knew nothing more than the issue, he could have immediately and infallibly given the correct answer.

Actually I didn’t say that the Pope can’t possibly be wrong, but I assume you mean when publicly declaring a matter of faith and morals as doctrine binding on the entire Church. Then the same applies to a council of bishops under the EO model. They can just all go into council and agree to put up the dart board and then wherever the dart lands, that is how they will decided. It would be an infallible decision. Don’t you find it illogical that the council would debate for decades instead of using the dart board or pulling a “yes” or “no” out of a hat? Do you see what I’m getting at?

And if it was known (as you have stated) then only mentally challenged bishops would have gone against the Pope speaking ex cathedra.

Then if the EO model is correct, only mentally challenged bishops and the Pope could go against it, like Chalcedon for instance. The argument in the converse is just as invalid as your argument.

 

[tdgesq]

SeaGreen: This is not to say that the Pope does not have to think, it is to say that if infallibility really works as you have described then, when deciding matters of faith, he can always give the right answer regardless of knowledge. If his answer is contingent upon right knowledge, then he is no better than any other intelligent Bishop.

Then under the EO model, the bishops could all just draw a “yes” or “no” out of the hat. The answer would have to be a binding and true teaching of the Church. Otherwise, their answer is contingent upon right knowledge.

So you are saying that the Pope’s infalliblity is limited to simple answers? He is not able to give a complex infallible explanation of an issue? (I really don’t know)

No, I am not saying that. I’m saying that expecting a Pope to inform himself on every issue by himself is unrealistic. He doesn’t have “lightening bolt” experience. That’s why he calls a council. The point here is that whether Pope or council, they are trying to find the truth, not guess at the truth. That is what they are bound to do as apostolic successors.

Unthinkable? Certainly it must be equally possible. Otherwise we have some watered down version of infallibility which goes something like this, “When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, only after having consulted Bishops, Scripture, modern Sholarly opinion, and a variety of other sources, he is able to speak infallibly”

Is this the definition of infallibility?

No, it isn’t the definition, and isn’t equally possible. You confuse infallibility with the decision making process. That is why I tried to impress upon you earlier that infallibility is a charism of the Holy Spirit that prevents the Pope from teaching error. Whether that charism lies with the Pope or the council as the EO would have it, they still have the obligation to seek the truth, not guess at it.

I am having difficulty understanding how a fallible source can change the mind of an infallible source in a matter of truth.

The Pope can think something is doctrinally true and later change his mind. Infallibility only applies once it is publicly taught as binding upon all the faithful. The only way I can see that you could be confused about this is if you aren’t taking seriously what the CC teaches with regard to infallibility.

So we are saying the ability to delare something infallibly is contingent upon information?

To a certain degree this has to be true. I mean, if you had no information that there was even a dispute or an issue at all, then it would literally be impossible to make a declaration. That would be just as true for a council as it would be for a Pope. I assume though that you are going further than that. I assume you mean that their must be some “adequate” inquiry, whatever that might entail. They are all bound to seek the truth.

Your questions remind me of Satan’s request of Jesus to jump from the temple, because his angels will surely save him. I suppose the bishops and the Pope could be completely reckless and not seek the truth through prayer and the intellect. I suppose they could do that and their teaching would still be correct by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As human beings though, they are commanded to do something different than that, even if they are successors of the apostles. I think it more likely though that divine providence would not allow them to do that, whether the EO or Catholic model. If it is contingent, then it is a contingency that would necessarily be met by Divine Providence.

1. If the Pope is not infallible, then their informing him is not useless, but if he is, and they really believe it, then they must also fully believe that nothing they say will alter the outcome (unless truth molds to what the Pope says)

Pope’s have changed their minds. You are not taking the Catholic teaching on infallibility seriously. Only a doctrine of faith or morals publicly declared as binding on all the faithful is protected from error.

1. I do see some logic in this approach, perhaps to allow the Pope to understand what Bishops think (not to change doctrine, but to maybe understand what changes need to be made or something of this nature, administration).

No, even to change his mind on doctrines that he has not yet declared to be binding Church teaching.

 

[tdgesq]

continued . . .

I am going to be honest here, I have some difficulties with the doctrine of Infallibility. I can understand the Pope as being the Universal head of the Church, and possibly can see how his ratification of a council is the only way one can know if it is true, but ex cathedra infallibility is hard to understand, and makes ecumenical councils seem superfluous.

I noticed. But I find it strange that you have no problem with the condition that a Pope confirm a council to know it is true Church teaching but refuse to consider the possibility that he could do it without a council. Can you tell me your thinking there?

I also don’t know why you don’t find it just as strange that under the EO model they don’t just draw out of a hat and then all agree. What a waste of time all the debate seems to be. Why even meet at all? Just send out letters to all the big players and say we will all agree to the answer that comes out the hat. It doesn’t matter what it is because once we all agree it will be binding Church teaching. Please answer that question if you would.

 

[anthony022071]

… Around and around she goes where would she stop no body knows.
Ok …One Question… IS THIS THE BELEIF OF YOUR CHURCH, (the Shotwell view that is) ???

 

[John214]

tdgesq,

Thanks for the responses, out of consideration for you and your time, I am going to attempt making the issues compact and straight forward.

1) Regarding Tertullian: Thank you for the link, I will not press the issue in a debate format but will try to understand it as best I can on my own, and should I have a serious difficulty then perhaps bring it up. If you have a link to a previous debate that you are able to find without to much trouble over this quote, then I would appreciate a link to it.

2) Regarding ex pre facto certainity of a Pope’s legitimacy: The comparisons to Jesus’ Resurrection and Apostolic lineage are not relevant as they are ex post facto. The reason I brought this up, is because a Pope’s ability to ratify councils and speak ex cathedra is certainly contingent upon his legitimacy. If I am not mistaken, certain Pope’s were declared anti-Popes perhaps many years after they lived. How can we know we are following a right Pope?

3) Regarding Papal Infallibility:

3a.

I also don’t know why you don’t find it just as strange that under the EO model they don’t just draw out of a hat and then all agree. What a waste of time all the debate seems to be. Why even meet at all?

The EO model is not at all comparable, under the doctrine of Infallibility Pope’s have immediate and 100% certainty that they have not erred, when teaching public matters of faith. The EO admits that even after a Council it is only after the Church as a whole has accepted it that it becomes infallibly binding (the way to discern this is difficult, but the point is that they do not believe that councils are automatically and always correct, infallibility does assume that of the Pope)

3b.

You confuse infallibility with the decision making process.

Alright. Let me ask you this to see if it helps clarify. In the Early Church their were some heresies which had simple answers. For instance, “Is Jesus only the first created Being, or is Jesus God?” Could not the Pope have simply spoken ex cathedra on this issue and solved the issue immediately? (Certainly Councils have many Canons, but regarding a major heresy which is very simply answered, could not the Pope answer it quickly and save large debates and schisms in the Church? Assuming the Early Church was aware of his ex cathedra infallibility)

3c.

I noticed. But I find it strange that you have no problem with the condition that a Pope confirm a council to know it is true Church teaching but refuse to consider the possibility that he could do it without a council. Can you tell me your thinking there?

It is not that I have no problem, it is that I find it more acceptable, especially if understood in the right way. For example, I could see a model of the Church where the Bishop of Rome played a leading role, where without his approval an ecumenical council could not be passed (but where even if he approved, the council might still be overturned). But with Infallibility it seems to rob the meaning behind the Council. I would expect with Papal infallibility, that the early Church might have done something of this nature:

I. Some heresy or doctrinal conflict plagues the Church.
II. Bishops go to Rome and present their cases.
III. The Pope makes a pronouncement.
IV. All (or at least the vast majority) of the Bishops accept his judgment.

Note: Voting, councils, and arguments do not exist. At least if they do then they are of little consequence. With Papal infallibility, it is simply too efficient and doesn’t allow room for error. Even if the Pope needs other Bishop’s (name removed by moderator)ut, he doesn’t need them to vote and argue.

Conclusion:

I hope this has clarified the argument and narrowed it down a bit. The two main points are 1) Papal Legitimacy and 2) the nature of Papal infallibility. I think I understand better what you mean by decision making process versus infallibility, still the issues enumerated above remain. Thank you for your time.

John

 

[anthony022071]

I am going to be honest here, I have some difficulties with the doctrine of Infallibility. I can understand the Pope as being the Universal head of the Church, and possibly can see how his ratification of a council is the only way one can know if it is true, but ex cathedra infallibility is hard to understand, and makes ecumenical councils seem superfluous.

Ex cathedra infallibility simply means that the pope will never teach an incorrect doctrine of faith or morals to the Church. The Pope is the head of the Church on earth,as Peter was. Now if anyone can believe that a body of bishops can be infallible in their pronouncement of doctrine,they should not have a problem with the head of the Church being infallible likewise. It is the head bishop that rules the body of the bishops. The pope’s ratification makes the decisions of a council valid. But councils don’t have legitimacy independent of the pope’s ratification. There were quite a few Eastern councils,made up of legitimately ordained bishops,that pronounced heretical doctrines.

 

[tdgesq]

If you have a link to a previous debate that you are able to find without to much trouble over this quote, then I would appreciate a link to it.

When I have a moment I will PM you the links I can find so as not to drag another thread into this one.

2) Regarding ex pre facto certainity of a Pope’s legitimacy: The comparisons to Jesus’ Resurrection and Apostolic lineage are not relevant as they are ex post facto.

There certainly isn’t anyway to identify the Pope’s legitimacy before the fact of the appointment. Maybe you mean at the time of the event is there a way that we can know with “certainty” his legitimacy. If that is the case, then the examples of Jesus’ Resurrection and the appointment of the Patriarchs are both valid. Unless I were an actual witness to the Resurrection or a witness to the event of the bishop’s election, it would have to be an inquiry after the fact. The relative certainty of those events would depend upon the historical strength of the claim.

The reason I brought this up, is because a Pope’s ability to ratify councils and speak ex cathedra is certainly contingent upon his legitimacy. If I am not mistaken, certain Pope’s were declared anti-Popes perhaps many years after they lived. How can we know we are following a right Pope?

It’s been a while since I’ve considered the issue of anti-popes. I know that many later reconciled with the true pope, making their identity quite obvious. I believe there are a few troublesome examples where a number of years passed and an anti-pope had a significant following. At the time it would have been difficult to determine who was the true Pope since I think some even had cardinals backing them.

The only thing I can offer you in that regard is that today those anti-popes have been historically identified, and that today the apostolic succession of the Bishop of Rome among the apostolic churches is not really a question, the Cyprianic hardliners aside. I understand your concern here, but it is not a purely Catholic issue. There have been anti-Patriarchs as well. If the model of the Pentarchy is what we are going to follow, then I suppose the same issue arises. The Coptic Orthodox have a Patriarch of Alexandria. The Eastern Orthodox have a Patriarch of Alexandria. The Coptic Catholic Church has a Patriarch of Alexandria in communion with the CC. And that is true as I sit here typing this.

The EO admits that even after a Council it is only after the Church as a whole has accepted it that it becomes infallibly binding (the way to discern this is difficult, but the point is that they do not believe that councils are automatically and always correct, infallibility does assume that of the Pope)

You mean there are some modern Orthodox theologians today that make that a requirement. I don’t think you will find consensus on that point, or even on the authority of the pentarchy for that matter. Go browse the first seven ecumenical councils. The councils are defining doctrine and anathematizing those who don’t agree. Heretical bishops are cut off from communion and in many cases exiled. I don’t believe that if you consulted those fathers they would tell you they might have been wrong and needed to wait for church wide consensus.

Alright. Let me ask you this to see if it helps clarify. In the Early Church their were some heresies which had simple answers. For instance, “Is Jesus only the first created Being, or is Jesus God?” Could not the Pope have simply spoken ex cathedra on this issue and solved the issue immediately?

I’m not sure which heresy to which you are referring, but to say that Jesus’ nature and the reality of the Incarnation were simple issues such that there were simple answers to be had is profoundly ahistorical. Nestorianism is still a heresy that exists today. I don’t find this to be a good example.