Just a few random thoughts on the papacy, I welcome thoughts, corrections, criticisms:
It would seem that the papacy is unbiblical for the obvious reason that Jesus addresses the very issue of leadership. In Mark 10:
And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
It would seem that if Jesus really wanted a papacy, he would have said “Peter is your leader, so don’t kill each other over this question of leadership.”
Another point on the papacy, if Peter was really the equivalent of a pope, the “Council of Jerusalem” in Acts wouldn’t have been so complicated and you wouldn’t have James be the one to give the final word in 15:19 ”It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.” Peter does chime in famously at this meeting, but they don’t give him the first or last word.
Finally, Matthew 16 is famous for the keys and the rock, but not only is this ambiguous but the other three Gospels don’t say anything at all about Peter and keys, so how central is this keys business really to the message of the Gospels?
As someone who is admittedly critical of Catholicism, am I being fair or am I missing something?
Obviously Jesus was not thinking of the papacy, centuries before it formally came into being. He would have assumed there would be no power-hungry men left, after the Kingdom came, nor was he trying to create a new religion called “Christianity.” So anybody who forms a Christian sect is going beyond what Jesus said.
‘Pope’ was not originally a title reserved for one bishop in particular. Any bishop might be called Pope. The papacy evolved over time, and it was natural they would say Peter was the first, since Jesus had chosen him to be first among disciples. This is common to monarchies as well–a desire to push the heritage back as far as possible, to increase its legitimacy. I don’t really have a problem with that, but it is important to understand the context.
Catholics are not in the main biblical literalists, so this isn’t really a major problem for Catholics. Peter clearly was chosen for some kind of leadership role by Jesus, and while he wasn’t a Pope in the modern sense, the modern sense keeps changing–for example, there are now two living Popes who each recognize each others’ legitimacy, though only one wields the power of the office. This has never happened before.
I don’t believe biblical interpretations are in themselves justification for worldly authority. As to spiritual authority, I think that comes from the Popes themselves–or not. Not a huge Benedict fan. Francis has, in fact, gone out of his way to demonstrate that he considers himself a servant, washing the feet of prisoners.
There is much to criticize in Catholicism, but didn’t Jesus say get the log out of your own eye first? 😉
I was aware of the history of the title “pope,” there is still a Coptic pope in Alexandria, even.
I think Catholicism has traditionally put on a lot of airs when it comes to claiming authority. I’m glad that you agree that such papal claims to unique authority are either invented or developed only centuries after the Biblical era.
I certainly limit my criticisms of the Catholic Church to the ultra-traditionalists and certain members of the hierarchy, not to the lay Catholic or those Catholics who are generally tolerant. I am certainly thankful for your great responses, I have to admit that I had great trepidation about posting anything, particularly for my first day here, but you have singlehandedly made it worth while.
For the record, who do you think does not put on airs when claiming authority? The British monarchy has almost no authority left, and they put on more airs than any Pope. (And the Queen is, please recall, the titular head of the Anglican Church–the Archbishop of Canterbury isn’t exactly living in a hovel).
How is any claim to authority by any church not invented? Even our Constitution is an invention, that most Americans had no say in (certainly not the slaves, who ended up being three-fifths of a person). Authority always has some element of people agreeing to a shared fiction. The alternative being chaos. You try to make it better over time. It’s always changing.
The Catholic hierarchy has included some very good people–and plenty who weren’t good at all. You judge people by their deeds, not their ceremonial robes.
And the biggest put-on of all is when people say “I know the correct interpretation of scripture–which I only know from a translation of a translation that all scholars agree is deeply misleading–and that gives me authority over what is moral or immoral.”
As Clarence Darrow once said, “You can argue with a man, but you can’t argue with a book.” Least of all when the people who claim to know that book deliberately misunderstand it.
The Catholic hierarchy has included some very good people–and plenty who weren’t good at all. You judge people by their deeds, not their ceremonial robes.
Precisely. So given that the Magisterium is no better/ no worse than any other self-appointed spiritual leadership in history, what becomes of their claims to be in touch with a special supernatural wisdom?
And as far as judging people by their deeds, the Attorneys-General of about 14 US States agree with you.
I can’t say that I have much respect for the British monarchy either, though at least they don’t claim infallibility.
I think the American Constitution is necessary, I can’t say the same for the papacy, and the alternative to the papacy is not chaos. We might agree that the popes are not the only rulers to engage in this sort of dishonest self-promotion (and that is without getting into the outright forgeries of papal history, like the Donation of Constantine) but they invite scrutiny in doing so. Do I feel any hesitation in calling out the pretentious of the Vatican, with its bank and billions of dollars? No.
The papacy’s claims are a bit more extravagant than these other examples you cite. There is a reason why I was discussing the popes here, and not, for instance, the archbishops of Milwaukee.
I agree that not all Catholic hierarchs are disreputable, which is why I specified that I was only critical of “certain members of the hierarchy.” You mentioned that you’re not a Ratzinger fan, I would be in the same anti-fan club.
Is Biblical fundamentalism worse than Papal claims to supremacy? I consider both irrational, the question of which is worse probably depends on the circumstances. My gut response would be to agree that Biblical fundamentalism is probably worse, but that might not always be the case.
I appreciate your thoughts, as always.
Stephen said
The Catholic hierarchy has included some very good people–and plenty who weren’t good at all. You judge people by their deeds, not their ceremonial robes.Precisely. So given that the Magisterium is no better/ no worse than any other self-appointed spiritual leadership in history, what becomes of their claims to be in touch with a special supernatural wisdom?
And as far as judging people by their deeds, the Attorneys-General of about 14 US States agree with you.
I’ve actually never heard Francis make any such claim for himself, though he can hardly reject it openly.
And Papal Infallibility, you really both ought to know, only became a formal doctrine in 1870. Another overreaction to modernity.
Frankly, I’ve seen little evidence most Catholics–left or right–believe in it. They believe the Pope is infallible when the Pope agrees with them.
“The Divine Right of Kings” is much older, and so is “Natural Law.”
Again, collective fictions we embrace to try and achieve some sort of order amongst ourselves.
Help00 said
I can’t say that I have much respect for the British monarchy either, though at least they don’t claim infallibility.I think the American Constitution is necessary, I can’t say the same for the papacy, and the alternative to the papacy is not chaos. We might agree that the popes are not the only rulers to engage in this sort of dishonest self-promotion (and that is without getting into the outright forgeries of papal history, like the Donation of Constantine) but they invite scrutiny in doing so. Do I feel any hesitation in calling out the pretentious of the Vatican, with its bank and billions of dollars? No.
The papacy’s claims are a bit more extravagant than these other examples you cite. There is a reason why I was discussing the popes here, and not, for instance, the archbishops of Milwaukee.
I agree that not all Catholic hierarchs are disreputable, which is why I specified that I was only critical of “certain members of the hierarchy.” You mentioned that you’re not a Ratzinger fan, I would be in the same anti-fan club.
Is Biblical fundamentalism worse than Papal claims to supremacy? I consider both irrational, the question of which is worse probably depends on the circumstances. My gut response would be to agree that Biblical fundamentalism is probably worse, but that might not always be the case.
I appreciate your thoughts, as always.
I think you need to read more history. In a world of kings who ruled by Divine Right, the Papacy couldn’t wield much authority if the Pope was just some guy.
I’d worry more about the Pat Robertsons, if I were you. Who rule by their own whim, and having their own TV networks.
If Atheism ever gets big enough, there’ll be Atheist Popes. They just won’t be called that (to their faces). Though a quick google search indicates there have been those who called themselves that.
The thing about Popes is, they are constrained–by protocol, politics, pragmatism.
The thing about many of today’s pontiffs without portfolio–theist or atheist–is that they often refuse to acknowledge such restraints. Their God is Ego, and it knows no boundaries.
‘Absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ I already agreed with your premise that all powerful institutions invent claims to authority, but I don’t think the history of the papacy is a trivial example of invented power. It seems like a natural thing to discuss, particularly in the midst of other discussions on Christian history and literature. It would seem that if you are opposed to egoists who claim great authority and wield it tyrannically, that you would recognize the papacy as a notable source of this behavior. The papacy institutionalizes such behavior.
Before I go off to “read more history” I will note that, among other reasons, the idea of the Divine Right of King’s emerged because of papal power and in response to it. Papal Infallibility wasn’t officially declared until Vatican I, but papal supremacy had been asserted for centuries. Martin Luther, for all his faults, wasn’t tilting at windmills.
I recognize that we are all prisoners of the moment, but I don’t think that you can take less than seven years of the reasonably humble Francis, and have us forget whole centuries of papal arrogance. I began by discussing the roots of papal claims to power vs. what the New Testament actually says. The fact that you might like the current occupant isn’t especially material to that discussion.
One can be critical of the papacy as an institution alongside being critical of the crazed Televangelist; they would often seem two sides of the same coin. Be that as it may, I agree with most of what you’ve said here.
By any chance do you happen to know who said “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely?”
(The correct quote.)
He was an English historian (also a Lord). He went to church. Guess which one?
That quote will always hold true. For everyone. But to argue that the modern Papacy has anything resembling ‘absolute power’–or that it ever did, even in the Middle Ages–yeah, better read some more history. 😉
But to argue that the modern Papacy has anything resembling ‘absolute power’–or that it ever did, even in the Middle Ages–yeah, better read some more history.
A moot point especially to all the tens of thousands of victims of abuse by the clergy. We’ll see what power the Church has after the legal system gets through with it. The quality they really don’t possess is any degree of moral authority. Of course Pope Francis does have a nice smile (except when someone grabs him).
Lord Acton as a more liberal Catholic wasn’t far from my mind. I don’t understand the pageantry of your question. For the most part I’ve agreed with your points. Your responses in this thread remind me of your point elsewhere about the narcissism of small differences.
I didn’t say any such thing about modern popes having absolute power. There were some popes who wouldn’t have minded absolute power in the worldly sense, of course. The point of the thread is about what popes and conservative Catholics have claimed with some consistency, and about the claimed origins of the institution. The realities of how much power they’ve actually wielded is another matter.
It is the popes who have claimed to be: “Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church…” in addition to claiming infallibility, having their own state with its own bank. Such extravagance on the basis of same vague passages in Matthew certainly invites scrutiny, putting aside other subjects of papal conduct.
If your suggestion is that we ignore such pretensions because everybody with power puts on airs and the papacy is one of many, your motion is rejected.
Stephen said
But to argue that the modern Papacy has anything resembling ‘absolute power’–or that it ever did, even in the Middle Ages–yeah, better read some more history.A moot point especially to all the tens of thousands of victims of abuse by the clergy. We’ll see what power the Church has after the legal system gets through with it. The quality they really don’t possess is any degree of moral authority. Of course Pope Francis does have a nice smile (except when someone grabs him).
Well yes, sexual abuse of any kind is a terrible thing. Unless you’re Richard Dawkins. Or this guy–
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I fully approve of anyone who engages in such conduct being prosecuted, but I see you believe in collective guilt–until it’s your collective.
Help00 said
Lord Acton as a more liberal Catholic wasn’t far from my mind. I don’t understand the pageantry of your question. For the most part I’ve agreed with your points. Your responses in this thread remind me of your point elsewhere about the narcissism of small differences.I didn’t say any such thing about modern popes having absolute power. There were some popes who wouldn’t have minded absolute power in the worldly sense, of course. The point of the thread is about what popes and conservative Catholics have claimed with some consistency, and about the claimed origins of the institution. The realities of how much power they’ve actually wielded is another matter.
It is the popes who have claimed to be: “Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church…” in addition to claiming infallibility, having their own state with its own bank. Such extravagance on the basis of same vague passages in Matthew certainly invites scrutiny, putting aside other subjects of papal conduct.
If your suggestion is that we ignore such pretensions because everybody with power puts on airs and the papacy is one of many, your motion is rejected.
No, that wasn’t it at all.
Acton was a 19th century Liberal–none of whom were modern liberals. He was just saying that this is a universal tendency, and the amount of pomp behind it really isn’t the point of anything. Quiet power corrupts just as much. All power corrupts. So why focus so intensely on Catholicism? And then say you have no problem with individual Catholics? Clearly you do, since without them, there wouldn’t be any Papacy. Acton, as a 19th century Catholic, certainly was Pro-Pope, even if he understood the Pope was just a man, and all men are corruptible. He still contributed to our understanding of ourselves, as did the brilliant American writer, Orestes Brownson, who converted to Catholicism before the Civil War and was an ardent advocate not merely for defeating the Confederacy, but using that defeat as the basis to end slavery. Catholics, like everybody else, are a mix of good and bad. I’m merely pointing out your focus on the negative–which is generally referred to as ‘prejudice’. “There are some good ones, but…..”.
Catholicism is a minority religion in Britain, as it was in 19th century America (as opposed to now, when it’s a large religion heavily frequented by ethnic minorities, some of whom are in cages as we speak). Minorities tend to be more liberal, more tolerant, because a more tolerant society is advantageous to them. Majorities tend to be less tolerant, for similarly self-interested reasons. (But I’m weirded out at how intolerant so many atheists are, when they are anything but a majority. They don’t even pretend a lot of the time, as in the case of Mr. Hitchens, homophobe, racist, and all for bombing the entire Islamic world. Of course they are heavily white, male, middle class…..)
I’m progressive in my politics, but I have a strain of Burkean conservatism in me. Edmund Burke said that we have to be wary of tearing everything down in our quest for progress, because that often leads to horrors we never imagined. We think we want revolution, until we see what it looks like, and who gets sent to the guillotine. Traditions should be respected, even as they adapt (slowly) to the times. No institution created by humans lasts forever, but Catholicism has come closer than most.
The Church does a lot more good than you realize. Or Stephen wants to admit. And its critics are, as I just demonstrated, often in a rather poor position to throw stones. One suspects their attacks on the authority of Catholicism mask a desire to have it for themselves. Which leads to? Precisely.
I recognized that you were making some Burkean points, and I grant most willingly that some traditions are worth keeping. I don’t know that the extravagances of the papacy should be smuggled into that list of necessary traditions. I mentioned that I view the US Constitution as more valuable than the papacy. The Constitution itself is amended, with some amendments repealed. Perhaps some papal claims, like infallibility, might be repealed as well…
You posit that the papacy has in fact changed a bit over time: in some ways it has, and if that continues I’ll be happy to give credit where credit is due.
As I said from the beginning, of course my criticisms of Catholicism are not directed at every Catholic, nor would I deny that good things can come out of the tradition. It would seem hypocritical for you to go on and on about Televangelists and then suggest that I shouldn’t mention the papacy: am I to assume that you are prejudiced against Protestants and see no good that Evangelicals might do, merely because you criticize their popular preachers? Of course not, because I criticize those preachers myself.
I didn’t agree with Hitchens on everything, but I admired him. He wasn’t a homophobe, and it is bizarre to raise homophobia as an objection while defending the Vatican of all things. As Hitchens might have said, if not for the antiquity of the papacy, you wouldn’t be grasping at so many straws to defend this rather absurd and pompous institution. An appeal to antiquity is fallacious, something’s worth isn’t inherently proven by its age. You may like the papacy, and that is your prerogative, but it is hardly needed for the good of society.
As for the abuse scandal, which is truly tragic, I find it hard to stomach the constant attempts at deflection that come from Catholic apologists on the issue. Tu quoque is a fallacy, and a childish one. I have dabbled in atheism, I don’t consider myself an atheist anymore. An atheist like any other human can do vile things (goes without saying) but mentioning one case of misconduct is not the same discussion as the one over institutional and global abuse, or the cover ups that ensued, from a Church that prides itself on centralization and hierarchy. Catholic dioceses didn’t part with billions of dollars (and counting) for nothing.
I mentioned far-right Protestant evangelists. I did not go on and on about them. If you think they are less of a problem than the Pope, I don’t know what to tell you. I didn’t see Francis saying Trump was sent from God.
I don’t admire Hitchens, because he
1)Supported the Iraq War, and went on Fox News to say that he supported it, and he never admitted he’d been wrong to do that. Hundreds of thousands dead. No WMD’s. And no remorse. He was supposed to be on the Left, but he just decided killing Muslims mattered more.
2)Said women had no sense of humor, and men evolved humor as a way of getting women to go to bed with them, which doesn’t make any sense on any level.
3)Referred to the comedian Wanda Sykes as ‘a black dyke’ because she dared to not agree with him. (racist as well!)
4)I suppose it’s not nice to attack a dead man for being a sodden drunk who would give television interviews in a state of deep inebriation. But he was never terribly nice himself, was he now? And you liked him for that, as long as he was being nasty to groups you are likewise unsympathetic towards.
As to ‘appeals to antiquity’ everyone makes those. Without exception. You admitted there’s something to be said for Burke’s argument–that’s an appeal to antiquity. What else did you think it was?
The point isn’t that atheists aren’t perfect either–the point is, this was an atheist LEADER. Dawkins is a truly headscratching case, since he was given a golden opportunity to rip the clergy for sex abuse (I wouldn’t have objected at all), and he said “There’s no problem with mild sexual abuse, I had some as a kid, and I turned out fine.” I’m paraphrasing, but seriously, that’s what he said.
You just hate the Church. Lots of people do (for a variety of reasons, and aren’t you happy to know you agree with Steve Bannon?) And thus, you can’t be objective about it. Here’s some Orwell for you (are you going to call him a Catholic Apologist?)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
godspell said
Stephen said
But to argue that the modern Papacy has anything resembling ‘absolute power’–or that it ever did, even in the Middle Ages–yeah, better read some more history.A moot point especially to all the tens of thousands of victims of abuse by the clergy. We’ll see what power the Church has after the legal system gets through with it. The quality they really don’t possess is any degree of moral authority. Of course Pope Francis does have a nice smile (except when someone grabs him).
Well yes, sexual abuse of any kind is a terrible thing. Unless you’re Richard Dawkins. Or this guy–
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I fully approve of anyone who engages in such conduct being prosecuted, but I see you believe in collective guilt–until it’s your collective.
Are you seriously claiming there is some kind of equivalence between the actions of these men and generations of systemic clergy abuse and the coverup at the highest levels of the Vatican? Dawkins was talking about his own experience and was roundly criticized by other atheists. David Silverman was investigated and fired for sexual harassment by an atheist organization. Your hatred and fear of atheists has unhinged you. I wouldn’t quote Orwell. You might choke.
Dawkins was saying “I was abused as a kid, it was no big deal, it’s an experience, these people should stop whining and focus on the real abuse–teaching children about religion.”
And this is still probably the most prominent atheist spokesperson on earth, particularly now that Hitchens (the guy who openly advocated for invading and occupying Iraq) is gone–though you could make a case for Sam Harris, who said maybe we should consider proactively nuking Islamic nations if they get nukes themselves (not so funny anymore, is it?).
I don’t remember any Pope in history openly defending child sexual abuse.
Your move.
Or you could just admit you’re a wee tad selective in your outrage.
Nah, you won’t do that.
Yes I am a tad selective in my outrage. Yes I do think the crimes of the Church are infinitely worse than a few atheists writing books and spouting off. But you don’t. This is a perfect example of what religion does to people. Even folks who fool themselves into thinking they’re above it all.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)