A Protestant asked me:
In your section on 'Rome' you note that it suffered, 'periodic moral decadence,a few weak or immoral popes..' Yet you are not bothered that the holder of an 'infallible' office ( yes I know it's only at 'times'), can be 'immoral'? I don't just mean falls into sin like everyone does sometimes, but actually 'immoral' as a characteristic, a lifestyle?
God has spoken through immoral people in the past to be sure. But as a routine office when they were immoral by lifestyle, not just isolated incidences?
And after Christ?
The apostle Paul continually holds himself up as an example to be followed, and expects other leaders in the Church to be able to do likewise, (Timothy for example). Yet you are suggesting the highest Church leader is immune to this requirement, so long as his theology when he makes 'infallible' statments is correct????
- The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach. (Mt 23:2-3; NRSV)
This seems to be not only an unbiblical suggestion but also a good example of the 'essential' difference between Rome and Orthodoxy.
Written in 1998 by Dave Armstrong.