Except many Eastern bishops ran to Rome for help when they argued with each other...
That’s how you handle synodal issues. You can appeal to other jurisdictions and they kinda act as an appellate court.
Rome would be first among equals, if they didn’t change so much from the early church. Papal infallibility is too far. We just have the different opinion perhaps. The church synodal church agreements can be the inspired direction of the Holy Spirit. We have seen time and time again the wildest popes of infamy, pirate pope, popes for sale, pope underground tunnels to a brothel, the infallibility is too much.
You just don't understand the dogma of papal infallibility. Yeah, we have had horrible popes. Yeah, we have even had popes that taught heresy. Papal infallibility only applies in very specific situations. Actually, the situation it applies to the most is when the Pope, acting as first amongst equals, is settling disputes in the Church once and for all. Look at the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - Christians, even Saints, were on both sides of that issue and debated it for centuries. A Pope finally settled it, once in for all. With synodal issues, if you have 2 camps, the Pope can settle that. Patriarch Barthomew isn't first amongst equals, so he doesn't have the power to do this. This is why the Eastern Orthodox needs to come back in communion with Rome.
You have to say papal infallibility is limited because it’s retarded and would easily prove the gates of hell have prevailed multiple times against Rome.
You have to say papal infallibility is limited because it’s a doctrine made up in the 1800s.
The whole church together in agreement synodally (like in the Bible) is the pillar of truth. Not any one bishop.
Historically Rome appealed to other jurisdictions to settle disputes. So Rome was not the only appellate court.
An ecumenical council anathemized a pope in 600. The Vatican agreed with it. Was pope honorius infallible? The fact that you’ve had a literally teaching heresy pope that was rejected by both the East and West shows the early church did not adhere to the lies of Vatican 1.
Papal infallibility was an idea that cam from the Early Church. The Church defines something as a Dogma wayyyyy after people already believe it.
Just because Pope Honorius was a heretic doesn't make Papal Infallibility wrong. When he supported monothelitism he wasn't defining this false doctrine as something that Christians have always believed. He merely lent his support to Patriarch Sergius, who was also in error.
Popes make errors. Sometimes they even say heretical things. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility never says they don't. It just says that when the Pope settles a matter in a Church, using the authority given to St. Peter, that the Holy Spirit guarantees that the Pope is inerrant when doing so. This is NOT a common thing.
Papal infallibility was an idea that cam from the Early Church.
False you already tried to prove this with your Catholic website which I’m guessing you didn’t read. The early church doesn’t not indicate papal infallibility. Hence even Peter being corrected by Paul in the Bible. Why would Paul have jurisdiction over Peter if Peter is infallible?
Just because Pope Honorius was a heretic doesn't make Papal Infallibility wrong.
Yes it does. You had a formally condemned pope,the gates of hell prevailed against your supreme pontiff even early on in the church.
We don’t even have to get into the child sex trafficking, money laundering for intelligence agencies, playing musical chairs with child abusers, tunnels under the Vatican to brothels, or any of the other examples of the gates of hell routinely prevailing over Rome. Maybe it’s a sign to come back to the faith of the early church.
You have a communist pope, you’ll figure it out when you’re ready.
That’s how you handle synodal issues. You can appeal to other jurisdictions and they kinda act as an appellate court.
Rome would be first among equals, if they didn’t change so much from the early church. Papal infallibility is too far. We just have the different opinion perhaps. The church synodal church agreements can be the inspired direction of the Holy Spirit. We have seen time and time again the wildest popes of infamy, pirate pope, popes for sale, pope underground tunnels to a brothel, the infallibility is too much.
You just don't understand the dogma of papal infallibility. Yeah, we have had horrible popes. Yeah, we have even had popes that taught heresy. Papal infallibility only applies in very specific situations. Actually, the situation it applies to the most is when the Pope, acting as first amongst equals, is settling disputes in the Church once and for all. Look at the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - Christians, even Saints, were on both sides of that issue and debated it for centuries. A Pope finally settled it, once in for all. With synodal issues, if you have 2 camps, the Pope can settle that. Patriarch Barthomew isn't first amongst equals, so he doesn't have the power to do this. This is why the Eastern Orthodox needs to come back in communion with Rome.
You have to say papal infallibility is limited because it’s retarded and would easily prove the gates of hell have prevailed multiple times against Rome.
You have to say papal infallibility is limited because it’s a doctrine made up in the 1800s.
The whole church together in agreement synodally (like in the Bible) is the pillar of truth. Not any one bishop.
Historically Rome appealed to other jurisdictions to settle disputes. So Rome was not the only appellate court.
An ecumenical council anathemized a pope in 600. The Vatican agreed with it. Was pope honorius infallible? The fact that you’ve had a literally teaching heresy pope that was rejected by both the East and West shows the early church did not adhere to the lies of Vatican 1.
Papal infallibility was an idea that cam from the Early Church. The Church defines something as a Dogma wayyyyy after people already believe it.
Just because Pope Honorius was a heretic doesn't make Papal Infallibility wrong. When he supported monothelitism he wasn't defining this false doctrine as something that Christians have always believed. He merely lent his support to Patriarch Sergius, who was also in error.
Popes make errors. Sometimes they even say heretical things. The Dogma of Papal Infallibility never says they don't. It just says that when the Pope settles a matter in a Church, using the authority given to St. Peter, that the Holy Spirit guarantees that the Pope is inerrant when doing so. This is NOT a common thing.
False you already tried to prove this with your Catholic website which I’m guessing you didn’t read. The early church doesn’t not indicate papal infallibility. Hence even Peter being corrected by Paul in the Bible. Why would Paul have jurisdiction over Peter if Peter is infallible?
Yes it does. You had a formally condemned pope,the gates of hell prevailed against your supreme pontiff even early on in the church.
We don’t even have to get into the child sex trafficking, money laundering for intelligence agencies, playing musical chairs with child abusers, tunnels under the Vatican to brothels, or any of the other examples of the gates of hell routinely prevailing over Rome. Maybe it’s a sign to come back to the faith of the early church.
You have a communist pope, you’ll figure it out when you’re ready.