It has been a wild last few months. As many knew I started attending an Eastern Catholic Church and studying more Eastern Christian fathers and spirituality; and I've come to a growing conclusion that not all was as I thought it was growing up.

I've been studying, and praying about the subject but I do not see a biblical case for the infallibility of the Pope (except for a pretty tenuous connection to the urim and thummim); nor do I see as clear cut a case for monachical authority as the Catholic Church has typically maintained (mainly due to the writings of the fathers who interpreted the binding and loosing and keys to the kingdom passages differently).

This sounds strange to say; and it's nigh schismatic; but what if the Catholic Church went rogue in the late 1st millenia and exaggerated its powers; while creating dogmas and doctrines which further cemented its powers? By that I mean; what if the Roman Catholic Church, is truly the great and Holy See of Rome; lead by the Bishop of Rome; the leader of Christ's Church on Earth; but all of the rest of the Papal Bulls, non-ecumenical dogmas; and ex-cathedra statements; were issued with authority that was self-referential rather than inherent.

My main issue isn't with the actual beliefs of the Church; but with the extensions of those beliefs, the praxis. You take a beautiful teaching like the sanctity of marriage; and come up with a tribunal for an annulment with countless rules and regs. You take the perfection of Mary; and come up with the doctrine of the immaculate conception; and anathematize everyone else who does not agree with the same belief (which would have been many of the Church fathers).

In short; yes I believe the Pope can still be both fallible and the Vicar of Christ; but I think the Catholic Church has made some mistakes; big mistakes. God Help Me, and forgive me if I'm in error, but I don't think the Pope is infallbile; nor does he have the power to unilaterally create dogma for all of Christendom.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong; I'm hoping someone will prove me wrong. BooBoo, I'm counting on you!!!

I don't know what you lose by recognizing that Christ entrusted his kingdom to a man, who has no divinity as part of his being. Christ did this to Peter, and said the Holy Spirit would be given to guide them.

I don't know whats wrong with saying "all our previous dogma states were under the grace of the Holy Spirit, and if someone did this incorrectly, then so help us God for our sin."

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Vicar of Christ is the anti-Christ, by definition.

---

How?

I always liked the notion that the Borgia popes would be infallable had they decided to decree ex cathedra.

Really underutilized that infallability, if I knew I could not go wrong I'd take a position on all matters controversial. Jesus take the wheel and all that.

Man bustup that really sucks. Not the conclusion, but the struggle. I've been there, different starting point but the same crossroad. It's not always easy. My family still doesn't understand my decision - my dad thinks I'm Roman Catholic, I'm pretty sure. My mom got mad and told my sisters I thought my church was holier than theirs (duh? I hope they think the same..?).

It can be tough. I wish you the best in it, whatever you decide.

Orthodox?

AggieRain said:

---

Orthodox?

---

nope. still Catholic, I believe the Pope still has authority, just not as much has been claimed and wielded. He's the Bishop of the premier see in Christianity, and succesor to Peter, that much is definite.

When I realized that I didn't fit in a Protestant Church I started looking at what else there was.

The obvious answer for me was RC.

I was able to break through most of the walls between RC and Protestant Churches when I looked at Church History and even early Protestants.

However, the one thing I've never been able to reconcile is how Rome could build the view they have of the Pope.

And that is when I realized I wasn't a fit for Rome and have now spent a lot of time exploring the Orthodox.

I'm not in the same boat, but I understand what you mean. I believe the Pope is the first among Bishops, but that they were originally given some authority but "abused" it.

If you really want to go totally reformed back to the first century, then follow the Jewish Apostles who believed Yeshua was the Mashiac, do what they told you to do in Acts 15:21 and get back in the synagogue on the Sabbath to learn the Torah of Moses for the obvious purpose of keeping it.

Shalom

Sq16Aggie2006 --

Here is an excellent article on the historicity of monoepiscopal governance. The Bishop of History

Also, there is a very good book that is written from Eastern perspective that argues for the primacy of Rome entitled "Russia and the Universal Church"

Quote:

---

but what if the Catholic Church went rogue in the late 1st millenia and exaggerated its powers; while creating dogmas and doctrines which further cemented its powers?

---

yeah. what... if...

If the Pope is fallible, why is the judgement of the RCC about the interpretation of scripture the ultimate authority?

The Pope is infallible because that gives the RCC unlimited claim to authority with no real counter argument, except for, nuh-uh, he is not!

I love the Catholic Church, it is the most influential charitable organization in the history of mankind. However, so much of the tradition is set up to consolidate power, and that troubles me a bit.

But, take heart, nothing can change the nature of Christ, which is all that really matters. Continue to seek Him. You will be blessed.

jkag89 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Vicar of Christ is the anti-Christ, by definition.

---

How?

---

"Vicar" and "anti" both mean "in place of."

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Vicar of Christ is the anti-Christ, by definition.

---

How?

---

"Vicar" and "anti" both mean "in place of."

---

No they don't.

Vicar - substitute
Anti - against

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

wbt5845 said:

---

No they don't.
Vicar - substitute
Anti - against

---

- antichrist

from - "for, instead of, in place of (something)"
and - Christ

---

Here's what "anti" means as a prefix in English. Your definition is nowhere to be found.

Greek doesn't show up.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

jkag89 said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Vicar of Christ is the anti-Christ, by definition.

---

How?

---

"Vicar" and "anti" both mean "in place of."

---

The position or office of a Vicar in the Catholic Church is that of a deputy or representative of a bishop, hardly a postion of "in place of."

Quote:

---

Your definition is nowhere to be found.

---

Strong's concordance:
for, instead of, in place of (something)

Oxford English Dictionary:
anti-, prefix1
repr. Greek (see ant- prefix, anth- comb. form), 'opposite, against, in exchange, instead, representing, rivalling, simulating'

Quote:

---

representative of a bishop

---

Vicar of Christ, not "a bishop"

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

representative of a bishop

---

Vicar of Christ, not "a bishop"

---

It is still a subservient postion is it not? In other words, not "in place of" as you claim.

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

It has been a wild last few months. As many knew I started attending an Eastern Catholic Church and studying more Eastern Christian fathers and spirituality; and I've come to a growing conclusion that not all was as I thought it was growing up.

I've been studying, and praying about the subject but I do not see a biblical case for the infallibility of the Pope (except for a pretty tenuous connection to the urim and thummim); nor do I see as clear cut a case for monachical authority as the Catholic Church has typically maintained (mainly due to the writings of the fathers who interpreted the binding and loosing and keys to the kingdom passages differently).

This sounds strange to say; and it's nigh schismatic; but what if the Catholic Church went rogue in the late 1st millenia and exaggerated its powers; while creating dogmas and doctrines which further cemented its powers? By that I mean; what if the Roman Catholic Church, is truly the great and Holy See of Rome; lead by the Bishop of Rome; the leader of Christ's Church on Earth; but all of the rest of the Papal Bulls, non-ecumenical dogmas; and ex-cathedra statements; were issued with authority that was self-referential rather than inherent.

My main issue isn't with the actual beliefs of the Church; but with the extensions of those beliefs, the praxis. You take a beautiful teaching like the sanctity of marriage; and come up with a tribunal for an annulment with countless rules and regs. You take the perfection of Mary; and come up with the doctrine of the immaculate conception; and anathematize everyone else who does not agree with the same belief (which would have been many of the Church fathers).

In short; yes I believe the Pope can still be both fallible and the Vicar of Christ; but I think the Catholic Church has made some mistakes; big mistakes. God Help Me, and forgive me if I'm in error, but I don't think the Pope is infallbile; nor does he have the power to unilaterally create dogma for all of Christendom.

I'd love for someone to prove me wrong; I'm hoping someone will prove me wrong. BooBoo, I'm counting on you!!!

---

I'm not nearly educated enough to have this discussion with you. Your best bet is to study the church fathers along with scriptures. But remember, we don't have authority to interpret the scriptures on our own.

You should set up an appointment with your pastor, and maybe even your bishop to discuss your concerns. Also ask for Mother Mary to pray for you.

Also, if you're questioning whether or not the early Popes "went rogue" in the early church and abused their power, you should look for evidence of that. I'm sure there are plenty of early theologians that thought that. Read their stuff, as well as the Church's response.

As far as things like annulment tribunals... How else would you propose dealing with those who had previous marriages that may or may not have been valid? Given the sanctity of the Eucharist, it is very important for people's souls that we don't admit them to communion until they are actually, you know, in communion with Christ and His Church.

Also, to the question "Can the Pope be fallible and still the Vicar of Christ?":

The answer is a resounding YES. The pope, or any pope, is a fallible man who, in very limited circumstances when there is doubt about a doctrine, can infallibly define doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I don't understand the need for a substitute when Christ is present. Even the word substitute should make you uncomfortable, especially when you have the real thing in front of you.

---

I don't know the origin of the title "Vicar of Christ" but I doubt that they meant it to convey "Substitute of Christ".

Probably means more like "governor" like a governor might have authority underneath a King or President.

And yes, I believe the Eucharist is Christ truly present in body, blood, soul and divinity. And I love to sit or kneel before Him and pray and worship. But He is not a walking talking "governor".

Bishops - all bishops - serve in place of and as a type (icon) of Christ. This is an ancient orthodox (small-O) formula.

Sorry, last post for a while...


The marriage tribunals were not formed by infallible decree. They flowed from Christ's position on the indissolubilty of marriage. They are a prudential decision by Church leaders.

Now, is that decision truly prudent? Is it truly what's best for Christ's church? I believe it is, BUT it is open for debate.

Even if marriage tribunals were a terrible prudential decision, that would have literally nothing to do with the Pope's, or the Church's, infallibility when it comes to faith and morals.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Bishops - all bishops - serve in place of and as a type (icon) of Christ. This is an ancient orthodox (small-O) formula.

---

Yes. An icon is a great way to put it.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Quote:

---

Your definition is nowhere to be found.

---

Strong's concordance:
for, instead of, in place of (something)

Oxford English Dictionary:
anti-, prefix1
repr. Greek (see ant- prefix, anth- comb. form), 'opposite, against, in exchange, instead, representing, rivalling, simulating'

---

I can never be sure if you're trolling or not.