In which I out myself as a Lutheran Papalist
Posted by Chris T. on Thursday, July 19th, 2007
How's that for a fun title? 
In the wake of the recent Vatican document discussing their belief that the Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church, headed by the Pope, I've been thinking a bit about the papacy. I've had confused thoughts on the matter ever since Benedict went to Turkey and prayed at the Blue Mosque, and I think it's appropriate for me to try to put something a little more coherent together.
First, I'm not a papalist, not really. I have major objections to the doctrines of papal infallibility and universal primacy, for one thing. Rome could start ordaining partnered lesbians tomorrow and I would stay in the Independent Catholic movement. It's not just obvious lefty issues that keep me out of that church, though those are important. It was interesting reading the LutherPunk's post about the CDF document — I still agree with a lot of the Lutheran doctrines about the papacy (not the tone, of course, in Luther's case) even though I've come to see the apostolic succession as critically important to Christianity. The Pope is just a bishop. Mostly.
The "mostly" part is where the Blue Mosque scene comes in. There are a number of situations where Christianity really needs a central figure to look to. Interfaith dialogue in the context of an ongoing clash of religions is definitely one of them. It's unfortunate that it was all a response to B16's inept comment about Islam in his Regensburg speech, but really, it was kind of a beautiful moment. When he turned toward Mecca and prayed, I was glad to have the guy as the avatar of Christianity. For all his flaws — even the Romans admit he's human — the Pope plays a unique role as Pope, for all Christians. And if he's ever really off-base about doctrinal issues or the way he treats those outside our faith, it's up to all Christians, not just Roman Catholics, to correct him. Because he has a really loud microphone, and he speaks for all of us sometimes.
That recognition that sometimes, for good or ill, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rome speaks for all Christians, is what leaves me with some seriously ambiguous feelings about the papacy. As a result of that, I pray for Benedict — though never in the Canon and not as "our Pope". I pray for him along with a few other non-Indie clergy — my brother and sister priests in local TEC communities and a few local non-Indie bishops. The lion's share of that list is still Independent Catholic priests and bishops.
In the end, I think all or most of this is a creation of human beings. The Church can exist without a single central ecclesiastical figure (Christ is certainly sufficient!). I am happy to see Benedict, like his last few predecessors, eschewing temporal power in favor of a role as pastor to the whole Church and hope that continues. Whether I could accept the "reformed papacy" some Lutherans have suggested they could accept — essentially a human institution, relinquishing claims to infallibility, universal jurisdiction, etc. — I don't know. I'm not sure what that would mean, given the historical trend toward an increasingly maximalist conception of that office. But I am happy to pray for whoever sits on that chair, hoping that he will wield whatever power the world sees him as holding in all our names wisely.
Filed in Ecumenism, Independent Catholicism, Priesthood, The Church |
9 Responses to “In which I out myself as a Lutheran Papalist”
I like to pound on the “symbol vs. reality” aspect of the Papacy a lot. I guess it makes sense to me to have that symbol of human priesthood consolidated into a single figure — so that, in Charles Williams’ words, the “heartbreaking manual acts of the Pope” are a symbolic representation of all priestly sacrifice offered in the Christian dispensation, as summed up in a single, human, sometimes tragic figure. In some way, we need this figure — someone to “be” Christianity — just like the UK “needs” its Monarch or Wrigley Field “needs” its Harry Carey (God rest his soul!).
Even with the symbolic aspects of the papacy being emphasized over the real hierarchical/jurisdictional ones, I still have my doubts and concerns.
There have been so many conceptions of the papacy historically (even official ones) bearing such different kinds of fruit, I have a hard time saying. I don’t find the biblical argument for it convincing, but as Catholics, that’s not determinative one way or the other.
In the end, I just pray for him as a bishop with a particularly high profile.
I’m hoping you can help me out here… you’re the only Catholic blog I read, and I enjoy it immensely and while I recognize you are not part of the mainstream Catholic church, I imagine you are versed enough to answer a question for me.
Re: the recent announcement from the Vatican restating themselves as the true church (more or less). Earlier this year I came across the concept of “anonymous christian” which was more or less a way of saying that there are people who are not part of the church, but are not going to burn in hell. If you’re not familiar with the concept, I’d look into it.. very fascinating. As a Jewish pluralist, it is all strange to me.. but fascinating.
At any rate, my understanding was that previously, this sort of idea was allowed to exist “officially.” Is the recent statement a revoking of that idea? Or was I misinformed originally?
Hi Gideon –
Thanks for your comment!
The recent document doesn’t change the teaching that people who are outside the church may be saved. In fact, a number of prominent Roman Catholic theologians during the 20th century (including one who was named a Cardinal) have taught a kind of qualified universalism — that we can’t be certain God will save every human being, but that we have good reasons to hope for that. Universalism has really taken root in a number of Christian communities in recent decades.
The Roman teaching is basically that even when people outside the Church are saved, the Church is involved in their salvation. This document just reaffirms that, saying that — according to Rome’s beliefs — other Christian communities are deficient because they don’t make submission to the Pope and, in the case of churches outside the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions, because Rome doesn’t recognize their ministers as valid.
But the concept of “anonymous Christian” — and other more pluralistic concepts — are still very much alive.
As a matter of curiosity, would you explain how and why apostolic succession has become important to you?
Hmmmm….maybe when you became IC you held some of your Lutheran tendencies and ideas.
I am all on board with a papal authority so long as it is one Reformed from what it is now. That is the only way I can see unity or a move en masse toward Rome. So long as things remain as they are, I doubt real highly we’ll see much change.
Thanks for the thoughtful article. I am also curious about how you view Apostolic Succession, mostly in relation to the efficacy of the Sacraments.
As you probably know I bat around the idea of the papacy as a man-made rank of the divinely instituted episcopate for the orderly running of the church. Not what Roman Catholicism requires one to believe but a far cry from Jack Chick’s kind of Protestantism (and the stuff Luther wrote in his worse moods) and the Western liberals who hate the Pope for his conservative teachings.
I’ve said lately that even if the Pope’s motu comes to full fruition and Western Catholic belief and practice in most places is restored there’s a chance I’d stay put partly for the reasons you gave: are the claims about his office true? That and the issues here that have punctuated my relations with Roman Catholics. You can be a traditional Western Catholic and still have this massive culture clash! (Which Thomas Day explained for me.)
That said…
I also like to say that whatever the theories about the origin and powers of his office, the Pope IS Anglicans’ (who until the unpleasantness under the Tudors WERE Roman Catholics) and other Western Christians’ patriarch.
This historical memory may be to do with some ICs’ craving some kind of recognition from him. I understand your criticism of that - IC priest Fr Rob Lyons has said the same thing about the obvious Romanness of many IC priests (’What? You’re not doing a May crowning?!’ they’s ask him) - but it’s also understandable.
And de facto he is the world Christian leader.
Not what Roman Catholicism requires one to believe but a far cry from Jack Chick’s kind of Protestantism (and the stuff Luther wrote in his worse moods) and the Western liberals who hate the Pope for his conservative teachings.
And from the secondhand Protestant filth tracked in by some online Orthodox and the ethnic/nationalist bigotry of some real-life Orthodox, both of whom sound like they’re doing impressions of Martin Luther in a funk.
Also…
The Pope didn’t do anything wrong at Regensburg. Surprise! He believes Christianity is right, reasonable etc. and Islam is wrong, irrational and so on.
The Blue Mosque incident sounds like a soft version of the scandal when John Paul II allegedly kissed a Koran and like the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, John Chane, equating the archangel Gabriel coming to Mary to his allegedly coming to Muhammad (if I recall the bishop’s words correctly) inspiring him to write ‘the holy Koran’ (a book that flat-out and explicitly denies Christianity). THAT was a mistake!
Looking at pictures of the Blue Mosque and of Hagia Sophia on which it is based it’s obvious that Islam is a rip-off of Eastern Christianity right down to the buildings: the Mormonism of Orthodoxy, or putting it in historical order, Mormons are the Muslims that hatched out of American Protestantism.