Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[Orthodox Andrew]

Do you agree?

 

[Photini]

I tend to agree with that.

 

[xenia]

I think it depends on the person. In history there have been many of divine right monarchs who had absolute power, and some of them, while not perfect, really tried to live righteous lives. I think of King David and even Louis IX of France.

-Xenia

 

[Suzannah]

Yes. Wholeheartedly.

However, as a sea captain of ocean going vessels that are usually full of drunken out of control sailors, Imust exempt myself and say that at sea, this rule does not apply to ME...

 

[Reader Nilus]

Yes, I agree.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Rilian]

I believe that quote is attributable to Lord Acton, who if I remember correctly was nearly excommunicated for his opposition to the doctrine of Papal infallibility.

 

[Alfred M]

I tend to agree with that statement and would also add that even if you are seeking to gain such power, you are already absolutely corrupt. I am just glad we have a glorious Saviour that can change even the most corrupt of hearts.

In the love of our Saviour,

Alfred, the lowliest of sinners.

 

[Matrona]

I don't think it's necessarily true. God seems to be handling His absolute power very well.

As for humans, I still don't think it is always a corrupt system but it is certainly not the ideal system of government; it's really more of a last resort.

 

[MariaRegina]

I believe that quote is attributable to Lord Acton, who if I remember correctly was nearly excommunicated for his opposition to the doctrine of Papal infallibility.

Lord Acton was correct. He saw corruption in every area of life, especially in politics.

 

[Patristic]

No, God does just fine!

 

[MariaRegina]

Re: Papal Infallibility and Supremacy

The Catholic Bishop*, Lord Acton made the statement:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

He definitely was against the whole idea of papal infallibility.

With all the power centralized in the Vatican, the Orthodox are quite nervous about embracing a power structure that wasn't all encompassing and supreme in the year 354 AD as it is now. The Bishop of Rome was only the Bishop of Rome. He didn't lord it over the other Patriarchs. Papal Infallibility and Supremacy are recent doctrines (1870 AD).

This is not a small issue to deal with. It's one of the major reasons for the schism of 1054 AD.

When you look at the 1917 Code of Canon Law - this monumental document worked on by Pope Pius XII as a younger man, codified and modified the Holy Catholic and Orthodox Canons. Some of those canons had anathemas attached. The Holy Canons were considered unchangeable. Yet without an Ecumenical Council being called, these Holy Canons were modified. The modifications done on the election and consecration of a bishop were incredible. Before only the local diocese was responsible to elect and have the new bishop consecrated by neighboring bishops - this system worked really great during times of persecution. Only after the consecration was completed was the Pope notified of the done deal. Now, the Pope has to approve each candidate for consecration before the consecration can take place. This is centralization. Do you see the big changes in the Holy Canons. This is another huge area of disagreements.

*At least I think he was a bishop.

 

[Eusebios]

In terms of humankind, I whole-heartedly concur. Though I too would say that there have been some divine right rulers who may not have been totally. or absolutely, corrupt.
God however is obviously not corrupt, nor can He be.
Just my 2 cents worth
His unworthy servant,
Eusebios.

 

[Michael G]

Yes. Wholeheartedly.

However, as a sea captain of ocean going vessels that are usually full of drunken out of control sailors, Imust exempt myself and say that at sea, this rule does not apply to ME...

Funny!

 

[Michael G]

Re: Papal Infallibility and Supremacy

The Catholic Bishop*, Lord Acton made the statement:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

He definitely was against the whole idea of papal infallibility.

With all the power centralized in the Vatican, the Orthodox are quite nervous about embracing a power structure that wasn't all encompassing and supreme in the year 354 AD as it is now. The Bishop of Rome was only the Bishop of Rome. He didn't lord it over the other Patriarchs. Papal Infallibility and Supremacy are recent doctrines (1870 AD).

This is not a small issue to deal with. It's one of the major reasons for the schism of 1054 AD.

When you look at the 1917 Code of Canon Law - this monumental document worked on by Pope Pius XII as a younger man, codified and modified the Holy Catholic and Orthodox Canons. Some of those canons had anathemas attached. The Holy Canons were considered unchangeable. Yet without an Ecumenical Council being called, these Holy Canons were modified. The modifications done on the election and consecration of a bishop were incredible. Before only the local diocese was responsible to elect and have the new bishop consecrated by neighboring bishops - this system worked really great during times of persecution. Only after the consecration was completed was the Pope notified of the done deal. Now, the Pope has to approve each candidate for consecration before the consecration can take place. This is centralization. Do you see the big changes in the Holy Canons. This is another huge area of disagreements.

*At least I think he was a bishop.

Yes absolute Papal Power corrupts absolutely! Even the otherwise holy man John Paul II is not completely innocent of using his absolute power to conform the Catholic Church to his views.