Well, Papal infallibility seems a bit much. ¨..the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error..¨ I think I am not buying that.
But is it not true that the Byzantine Emperors acted and claimed the same position over the eastern churches as the Popes today claim over the western churches? Was not the Eastern Empires form of government one of Caesaropapism?
Well, not exactly. Some emperors tried to introduce heresy but each time they failed. For example the monothelitism of Constans II or the iconoclasm of Leo III and Constantine V etc. etc.
The Emperor was head of the Church and claimed infallibility in the east?
Emperors were never the head of the Church (the only head of the Church is Christ) and they never claimed infallibility.
Perhaps a mod should split this thread to keep things on topic.
Well, making a quick search showed up this...
Caesaropapism in the Eastern Church
Caesaropapism's chief example
is the authority the Byzantine Emperors
had over the
Church of Constantinople or Eastern Christian Church
from the 330 consecration of Constantinople through the tenth century. The Emperor, whose control was so strong that "Caesaropapism" became interchangeable with "Byzantinism"
Definition: Caesaropapism is the term for a system whereby secular rulers exercised direct control over the church.
Where Caesaropapism was established, kings or emperors could appoint clerics and influence church doctrine. The term is most frequently applied to the Byzantine Empire, where emperors were proclaimed to be equal to the apostles
in 754, but it has also been used in describing the Russian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, and England after Henry VIII broke from Catholicism and initiated the Anglican church.