The Pope of Rome Converts to Orthodoxy

[Silentchapel]

Thanks for all the answers. And while I'm still kinda shocked at the thought that no one can formally judge the pope (but then again, it is logical if one believes in Papal Supremacy), I have sudden liking for Pope John XXII.

[Vincentius]

This is quite easy. They disobeyed their Church. They fell into a heresy - a new teaching according to which calendar is dogmatic. They caused the schism. The issue cannot be more clear. We do have final authority (Consensus of the Fathers), and it is more than clear that they're wrong on this issue. Most Roman Catholics are no better than Orthodox who accuse Catholics of thinking of the Pope as God (although, I'm starting to go in that direction, with this worship of 'final authority').

 
Check and re-read (if you haven't already) Church history, pausing at the year circa mid 9th Century:  Photius (of Constantinople) is considered the Father and "chief author" of the great Schism between East and West.  Photius himself  was not a legitimate Patriarch for being ordained by an excommunicate consecrator (Gregory Asbestas) and installed in a see that was already filled.  

And You ask who caused the schism?  Micheal Celularus merely clinched the deal in 1054 AD, but the Eastern schism was already fomenting since 863 AD.  I ask you to read church history and not do what the Protestants do, which is to fast forward to the present and blur everything in between.

[Silentchapel]

This is quite easy. They disobeyed their Church. They fell into a heresy - a new teaching according to which calendar is dogmatic. They caused the schism. The issue cannot be more clear. We do have final authority (Consensus of the Fathers), and it is more than clear that they're wrong on this issue. Most Roman Catholics are no better than Orthodox who accuse Catholics of thinking of the Pope as God (although, I'm starting to go in that direction, with this worship of 'final authority').

 
Check and re-read (if you haven't already) Church history, pausing at the year circa mid 9th Century:  Photius (of Constantinople) is considered the Father and "chief author" of the great Schism between East and West.  Photius himself  was not a legitimate Patriarch for being ordained by an excommunicate consecrator (Gregory Asbestas) and installed in a see that was already filled.  

And You ask who caused the schism?  Micheal Celularus merely clinched the deal in 1054 AD, but the Eastern schism was already fomenting since 863 AD.  I ask you to read church history and not do what the Protestants do, which is to fast forward to the present and blur everything in between.

Well, the problem is - Patriarch of Constantinopole isn't 'an Orthodox Pope' so just because he made the mistake doesn't mean that all other Orthodox Patriarchates were wrong along with him.
And I never asked "who caused the schism". Don't put words into my mouth. Even if the blame for the scism is on St. Photius (and it isn't and can't be - the differences between Christian West and East started LONG before St. Photius was even born, they just culminated in St. Photius' time and have had their resolve in 1054).

[QuisUtDeus]

Thanks for all the answers. And while I'm still kinda shocked at the thought that no one can formally judge the pope (but then again, it is logical if one believes in Papal Supremacy), I have sudden liking for Pope John XXII.

Pope John XXII wasn't too much an aberration.  He was just much more public and did something after the fact.  Encyclicals, etc., the popes have reviewed by theologians and so forth but usually before promulgation.   But the final decision and responsibility rests with the Pope.

 

The better Popes have good advisers, obviously.  Not to take anything away from them, but good advice always helps.

[Silentchapel]

Thanks for all the answers. And while I'm still kinda shocked at the thought that no one can formally judge the pope (but then again, it is logical if one believes in Papal Supremacy), I have sudden liking for Pope John XXII.

Pope John XXII wasn't too much an aberration.  He was just much more public and did something after the fact.  Encyclicals, etc., the popes have reviewed by theologians and so forth but usually before promulgation.   But the final decision and responsibility rests with the Pope.

The better Popes have good advisers, obviously.  Not to take anything away from them, but good advice always helps.

I just liked him forming a comission to evaluate his opinions. It takes a great deal of humility to think of own convictions as possibly heretical.