as i was writing about in the apologetics forum, this is where i am personally:
are there many claims of inerrancy of the pope prior to say, 1000-1300?
i ask, because i’m really starting to think about joining orthodoxy (possibly a strain of Eastern Catholocism) given the notion that I can’t find much in the way of of early teachings that say the pope cannot make mistakes. (he is said to be infallible, when the pope, teaches, the church, on faith and morals) i see plenty that he is a “first among equals” and a highly respected leader, and perhaps even deferred to, but nothing in the way of ‘inerrant’. it’s said that even if that doctrine is true, it wouldn’t just spring up in full force. which i understand. but then again, it wouldn’t take more than a thousand years to say something about the pope being inerrant.
also, i’m trying to understand a critical point in history. 1000 ish was when the East broke from the West. early 1200 ish is when the Latern Council said the pope should be "humbly defer"ed to. (note they didn’t say humbly submit) and late 1200 ish is when a fellow named Olivi (some call him the ‘inventor’ of infalliblity) came along and without question said the pope cannot error. in the early 1300 ish a pope John XXII decried that idea of infalliblity, at least the extent of the definition given. the pope talked about all temporal and civil power and everything being too much for the pope. it is unclear if he thought any perogative of the pope being inerrant was too much, or the extent described. it’s ambiguous… but seems to indicate any inerrancy peroagative was too much. but… and this is a big but, less than a mere decade after that pope, though, another named Terreni came along and defined infallibliity very similar to the way Vatican I defined infallibility.
so i’m wondering what connections there are between Terreni and Olivi? why did Terreni see fit to limit infallibility better? was he influenced by Olivi or did he act on his own accord? he was almost surely influence by the pope’s writing against infallibility, right? and yet he still chose to write it similar to how vatican I would later do it?
that does seem to be pretty compelling in favor of the catholic church. as of now, i just don’t have enough info about all the connections.
but even if this time frame was viewed most favorably to catholics, where is the proof of inerrancy pre1000-1200?
to me, that is becoming the deal breaker in becoming a full fledged catholic.
so is there any room in eastern catholic churches for someone who might not view the pope as infallible… or at least not infallible as often as he is made out to be?
i’m reminded of that thread by me recently where i almost concluded that with some easterns infalliblity is: the pope, intentionally, binds, the church, on important issues, of faith and morals. whereas with the catholic church it is the same, but minus it having to be “important”.
i’m reminded that it was mostly the eastern catholics who were hesitant to vote yes on infalliblity at Vatican I. and i’m reminded of that story of the pope putting his foot on the head of a Melkite bishop and calling him the “stubborn” one. so we see that at least in that time till more recently, there was much more room for criticism of infalliblity.
i’m also reminded of lots of threads here, where posters will tell you that you will hear all kinds of things from easterners about the issue, and that you have to figure it out yourself. then there’s others who say there’s no room for those who doubt infallibility. it sounds like the Melkites are most friendly to the idea of being skeptical.
i’m also reminded of the ‘‘Ratzinger principle’’, that says any communion relationship with Easterners, catholics or orthodox, must be based on them not necessarily following the roman church as infallible, as long as they are open to the teachings.