Some of what you said reminded me of John 11....in regards to the principle of "Respect the Office" and knowing that the Lord still works through it. It is fascianting to see the ways that even those who harrassed the Messiah were still used by the Lord to do Divine things.
John 11:45-52
The Plot to Kill Jesus
45Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
"What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place[a] and our nation."
49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
The phrase "die for the people" invokes the memory of the Maccabean martyrs (II Macc, 7:37-38). With a typical Johannine double meaning, Caiaphas's pronouncement anticipates Jesus's substitutionary atonement. IMHO, the man's actions do not mean that Caiaphas — like one who was mad, or out of his senses — uttered what he did not understand. For he spoke what was his own opinion. Rather, a higher impulse guided his tongue, because God intended that he should make known, by his mouth, something higher than what occurred to his mind. What Caiaphas said at that time was done in 2 senses.....one which dealt with the wicked design of putting Christ to death, which he had conceived in his mind...and the other concerning what God had in mind when it came to how the Lord wanted Christ to die ( Acts 2:22-24 ), thus making Caiphas's words a prediction. Its similar to what occurred when God intended to bless his people by the mouth of Balaam, on whom he had bestowed the spirit of prophecy...even though Balaam's intentions were to curse (Numbers 22-25).
It is highly significant to consider Caiphas's words in light of how it makes clear that he was HIGH priest that year when he stated what he did. As said best by Oskar Skarsaune in his book In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity when speaking on the ways the priesthood was set up, "The Prophetic Gift Folowed the Office - not the man."
To see the reality of how the offices others occupied were respected by the Lord - even in spite of corruption and showing a lack of any qualification for that office - is a principle in showing how the Lord can still use others who have a legal position even though they lack the morality to do the Legal job as commanded.
And as it concerns the subject of Roman Catholicism, there are PLENTY of things which the Pope may do that I have always disagreed with - as have many within Catholicism and OUTSIDE of it. But as was the case in the Early Church, it is NOT for us to determine his salvation since that is overstepping the bounds the Lord has given us....and ANYTIME such has occurred, we directly place ourselves outside of the jurisdiction that the Lord has given us and we ourselves are on dangerous ground.
Many in RC forget that the basis they have for the Pope doing as he did is based on a misunderstanding of ecclesiology - for when they look to Matthew 16, they forget that Matthew 16 has to do with the episcopate, not the papacy. In Orthodox (and Scriptural and Patristic) theology, the Church is the Eucharist assembly gathered around the bishop in a particular city, and the Church has a visible head - the bishop who represents the icon of the Father. The mindset is that it is better to NOT have one point of success and failure (the Pope) IN FAVOR of a network of self-balancing and self-correcting Churches/Bishops in sacramental communion. The latter as a system is more likely to preserve stability and the Apostolic Deposit unchanged..
The Patriarchate of Rome is one of the five historic patriarchates of the Church, the others being Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Orthodox accorded the Pope of Rome the respect due the “first among equals” prior to the Great Schism. The Orthodox agree that, historically, there was a primacy accorded the Pope of Rome. However, Orthodoxy holds that primacy was always understood as a primacy of honor and coordination rather than a primacy of sovereign authority. The Bishop of Rome had always been considered the First in the order of hierarchy and this was a natural consequence of the position of Rome as the capital of the Roman Empire. When Constantinople became the new capital of the Byzantine State its Bishop assumed the second position in the ranks of the hierarchy. And the third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council (381) designates the position of honor of the Bishop of Constantinople as second only to that of the Bishop of Rome. This decision of the Council is based on the premise that Constantinople is new Rome, and, incidentally, it has been retained among the titles of the Patriarch of Constantinople. And this indicates, as was brought out at the Council, that the political importance of the city defined the honorary status of its hierarchy.
For the Orthodox, all bishops are fundamentally equal. While Roman Catholic theologians would counter that the understanding of the special status of papacy evolved over time in the West under the influence of the Holy Spirit, Orthodoxy would insist that the authority granted the first bishops, the apostles, was granted once and for all, and that the revelation of authority in them within the Body of Christ does not evolve over time - and Orthodoxy also believes that all Orthodox bishops are the successors of Peter and that Rome’s pope cannot hold this status uniquely.
And for the RC Pope, one thing that would need to be realized in order to be in line with the Church is that the Church of Rome was out of communion from the ancient Eastern Churches (in external schism) and made some bad choices which have affected the Churches in communion (in this case obedience) to the Church of Rome. ....including Churches that were in Rome which were Western in location and yet never agreeing with all aspects of what the Church of Rome did. For these bad choices make spiritual life less "assured" (bebeia in Greek, as used by St. Ignatius), such as bad (if not false) liturgics, mutilated sacramental life, misleading doctrines (infallibility), etc., and eventually led to the tragedy of the Protestant Reformation...
For good review on the matter, one c
an go here and
here - as well as "
The Problem with Papal Infallibility. God has used Catholics repeatedly throughout the history of the Body of Christ - be it in social activism, helping out widows/orphans, feeding the poor or preaching Christ in consistency with what he noted when it came to love for others PHYSICALLY manifested as God commanded in I John 2 and James 2 with not simply saying "I wish you warm/well fed" rather than truly being a good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-39).
And the same goes with the Pope - seieng how there have been MANY godly popes who have done much for the Kingdom of God.
It's already a basic fact that there are MANY Popes of Rome who have been Orthodox Saints - and outside of that, there have been many popes who may have been in very bad error - but to dismiss them as not being saved simply because they are Roman Catholic is not within the bounds of what Christ or scripture noted..