Posted on 06/22/2009 7:28:34 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
History is the great debunker of pre-conceived ideas that are rooted in ideology and false piety rather than in reality.
Without a grasp of history, and of the history of the papacy in particular, many Catholics are led to believe that the papacy must always have been as they have known it, and most popes have been just like the popes of the 20th and 21st centuries: Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.
The pontificates of a thousand years ago, however, were very different from any that we have experienced in our lifetimes.
First of all, we do not even know how the pontificate of John XVIII ended in 1009. Did the pope abdicate before his death and, if so, was it under duress?
If he did abdicate, what did he do after he left the papacy? No living Catholic has ever seen that happen. Indeed, for those who tend to look upon popes as quasi-divine figures, papal resignation is simply unthinkable. Once a pope, always a pope -- until death. No?
According to some historical sources, Pope John XVIII most likely did abdicate, or resign, the papacy shortly before his death, and then became a monk at the basilica of St. Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome, where he is buried.
Otherwise, little is known of his pontificate. We do know that during this period of church history, from 1003 to 1012, one of the powerful Roman families, the Crescentiis, ruled the city and dominated the papacy itself.
From 999 to 1003 the first French pope, Sylvester II, was seated on the Chair of Peter. A dedicated reformer, he denounced simony (the buying and selling of spiritual goods and church offices), nepotism (favoring members of one's own family for appointment to church offices), and violations of clerical celibacy. He also insisted on the free election of abbots by monks.
But in February of 1001 the Roman citizenry revolted against foreign domination. The French pope and his German friend and ally, Emperor Otto III, were forced to leave the city.
Otto died the following year, before he could reestablish his authority in Rome. The new head of the Crescentii family, John Crescentius II, allowed the French pope to return, but only on condition that he limit himself to spiritual functions. The pope died less than a year later.
A relative of the dominant Crescentii family succeeded Sylvester II in an election that was undoubtedly engineered by the family's leader. What was also remarkable, besides the decisive influence of a layman on a papal election, is the fact that the new pope, John XVII, had been married before ordination to the priesthood and was the father of three sons.
The pope's only notable recorded papal act was his authorizing of Polish missionaries to work among the Slavs. It is not even known how he died or how old he was at the time of death.
Although John XVII was pope for less than six months, his pontificate was not among the shortest in history. For purposes of comparison, Pope John Paul I was in office for just 33 days in 1978, yet his was only the 11th briefest pontificate in history.
John XVIII was cardinal-priest of St. Peter's Basilica when elected to the papacy on Christmas Day 1003 (the Vatican's official list begins his pontificate in January 1004). None of his accomplishments as pope have had any lasting historical significance beyond certain locales.
Thus, he restored the diocese of Merseburg in Germany, which Pope Benedict VII had sup-pressed and divided at the request of Emperor Otto II, and John XVIII also approved the establishment of the diocese of Bamberg in Bavaria.
He summoned the bishops of Sens and Orleans to Rome under pain of excommunication because of their threats to the papal privileges granted to the abbey of Fleury.
There is some evidence that relations between Rome and Constantinople improved during John XVIII's pontificate, probably because of the pro-Byzantine sympathies of the Crescentii family. The pope's name was restored to the list of those to be prayed for at Mass in Constantinople.
However, the thaw was relatively brief. Less than 50 years later, the formal schism between East and West began, and remains in effect to this day.
John XVIII was probably forced to resign in late June or early July, 1009 -- almost exactly one thousand years ago.
His successor was Sergius IV who, because his baptismal name was Peter, changed it upon election. Taking a new papal name was still not the custom.
Alas, Sergius IV was murdered.
So sad.
It flys in the face of scripture...
I'm sure it flies in the face of your non-logical misinterpretation of Scripture, but not one word of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is contradicted by Scripture.
In your cavalier dismissal of the writings of learned and holy men, too numerous to mention, do you ever entertain the possibility that it might be you that is in error? Is there ever the germ of an idea that your own understanding of Scripture might not be complete? Might not be of a measure with Aquinas, Augustine, Dominic, Jerome or Basil?
Would you so easily dismiss the accumulated wisdom of centuries on scientific or historical issues?
Well it would had to have been 'risen' Saints that conversed with the risen Mary...You guys talk to these Saints, eh??? And then you try to convince me that your religion is right because people/spirits of the occult have confirmed it??? No thanks...Just one more reason for me to avoid your religion...Do these mystics use Tarot cards, or crystal balls as well???
Your ignorance of Scripture is frightening.
Did not Jesus take Peter, James and John with him up Tabor and converse with Moses and Elijah? The three Apostles saw both Moses and Elijah for Peter said to Jesus, "Let us make three tents......" Or was that "Tarot card" stuff as well?
The Communion of Saints is one body. Those who enjoy the beatific vision of God can and do intercede with us before God.
Answer me one question.
How can the sinful give rise to the sinless? How can sinful flesh give rise to sinless flesh?
That's your belief, right? Out of sinful human flesh came the Sinless One.
Let me be more direct then. :)
McBrien stumbled into a point backwards..but I think he really hasn't done anything more than state the obvious. A true critic of the papacy (modernist, Protestant, whatever) would make more substantive points even than he did: forget Popes who resigned....I want to get to the nub of what happened during the whole Honorius controversy.
I actually agree (and I suspect Benedict XVI would as well) with certain aspects of McBrien's thesis here...that aspects of the Papacy have changed. Anyone who says otherwise is being foolish--and I personally have no patience for that kind of blind ultramontanism.
But the real question to you, Alex, and anyone else is have these changes in any way affected the essence of the office? And there I'd argue, on the basis of Clement's letter, the Ignatian epistle to the Romans, and the very clear statements of Irenaeus, the answer is a very clear no.
From the Bible and from here: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/family-tree-of-jesus.html
Several New Testament scriptures confirm the fact that Jesus was not the only child of Joseph and Mary. See Matthew 13:55-56 :
“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? . . . “ (New International Version Bible)
Notice here that Joseph, the husband of Mary, is not listed. It is probably because he had already died. A parallel account of these verses can be found in Mark 6:3. There is also mention of Jesus’ family in Matthew 12:47, John 2:12, and Acts 1:14.
Much appreciated :D
McBrien stumbled into a point backwards..but I think he really hasn't done anything more than state the obvious....I actually agree (and I suspect Benedict XVI would as well) with certain aspects of McBrien's thesis here...that aspects of the Papacy have changed. Anyone who says otherwise is being foolish--and I personally have no patience for that kind of blind ultramontanism.
Thanks for the honesty.
But the real question to you, Alex, and anyone else is have these changes in any way affected the essence of the office?
Your second century quote (taken from St Irenaeus's Against Heresies, vol III written in 180 a.d.) deals specifically with preservation of apostolic tradition, and with hierarchical authority, as of 180 a.d.. But (as one example) it does not address or argue in favor of papal infallibility. I would argue that, at best, the former cannot be "proved" by the latter, only vise versa. I would argue that your quote doesn't prove the "essence" of the office of Pope, at least not as it's understood and advanced in its entirety by Catholic theology today. It's one thing to "prove" that tradition has been preserved up until now. It's quite another to "prove" that tradition will be preserved forever. Irenaeus can only "prove" the case up until 180 a.d.
I must admit, though, you take a tack I wasn't expecting. Usually, people demand someone to trace the doctrine back to the Apostles--the assumption being that it is a novelty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem ok with the idea that the Roman Primacy is no novelty and the See may well have inherited this privilege from Apostolic times.
You only object that the privilege may not be a perpetual one. Rome was the seat of orthodoxy, but she is no longer (and she had presumably forfeited that title by the time of the Reformation). Am I stating your position accurately?
“And a notorious liberal and modernist, but we won’t talk about that.”
I have often thought that good conservative Protestants have lots of stuff in common with lefty modernist wishy washy Catholics. That’s not to say that this makes those Protestants libs or anything, it’s just weird.
I mean, is there any Catholics out there who agrees with Protestants about the papacy,divorce and remarriage, birth control, the Blessed Mother, the celibate priesthood, the True Presence, etc., without also being WAY into abortion, priestesses in the Church, “gay marriage” and socialism?
Freegards
I myself would argue that Irenaeus is not arguing for the Bishop Of Rome per se, but rather for the Church Of Rome - and even then, Irenaeus is arguing in favor of it's then-present state, and not for some future-looking behavior.
I must admit, though, you take a tack I wasn't expecting. Usually, people demand someone to trace the doctrine back to the Apostles--the assumption being that it is a novelty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem ok with the idea that the Roman Primacy is no novelty and the See may well have inherited this privilege from Apostolic times.
Let me try and be surgically precise with my answer on this. First, I tend to agree with the Orthodox position that the Roman Bishop does not/should not in a position of preeminence over the other Bishops of the Church, so long as the other Bishops are observant and obedient to the faith. Second, I would argue that scripture itself makes no demands for this ecclesiastical authority, on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, in perpetuity. None of this IMO challenges arguments regarding the papacy's temporal authority over the Catholic Church itself. Anyone who submits to an authority should be bound to it.
I have far fewer problems with the idea of Roman Primacy being "handed down" from apostolic times, or even with the (IMO false) notion that the papacy can be traced back in an unbroken line to Peter himself. All of those are statements regarding ecclesiastical authority and covenantal representation, not statements regarding ability (and please note that I said "fewer problems", not "no problems at all"). I think there's a general principle articulated by Scripture that if the officeholder and organization remain unblemished, then an argument of submission to the ecclesiastical authority and continuity of the organization (whether the Church of Rome or anyone else) could be advanced. Most critically, however, is that I believe the Roman Bishop (like any other bishop, priest, pastor, etc) can fall into error in regards to matters of doctrine. In other words, even doctrinal remarks made ex cathedra can be in serious error, and thus the claims of spiritual authority made for both specific organizations and offices can always be tested and (potentially) found wanting, no matter the historical pedigree. The possibility of apostasy (and repentance and restoration) exists for any and every Christian body, even for the Catholic Church. Christ said that He is able to raise up "sons of Abraham" (Matthew 3:9, cf Romans 9:8) from the stones themselves. I do not think Matthew 16:18 demands a single ecclesiastical organization to fulfill it's meaning.
You only object that the privilege may not be a perpetual one. Rome was the seat of orthodoxy, but she is no longer (and she had presumably forfeited that title by the time of the Reformation). Am I stating your position accurately?
I would say you're very close - I would argue over the exact nature of the phrase of "forfeited". Suffice it to say that I am not a Restorationist. I believe strongly in creedal continuity. I do not believe in, nor require a a Trail of Blood to explain "where the church was" in history.
FWIW, I got quite a chuckle when I realized that we've had a similar conversation on these things before!
What is the meaning of “brother” and “sister” in the Aramaic and the Greek in use at the time the gospels were written?
Ah, very good. Very succinctly stated. A lot to digest there, so I’ll think on it and respond when I have more time
One more clarification though....if you believe that the Bishop of Rome can err in regards to doctrine, do you believe the *Church* can err? We’ll leave aside the thorny definition of how to define said Church for now...but can you assent to the overall infallibility of the Church?
That’s funny about that old discussion. :)
Hey, we have to jointly define something - if not what "the Church" is, then at least what "infallibility" means. Can I assume that you're defining "infallibility of the Church" as what's being spoken of in Matthew 16:18?
Yes, that’ll work. Some kind of guarantee that, notwithstanding heresies, the Church itself would be preserved in orthodoxy until the end of time.
Well, you haven’t recognized it yet and without the Holy Spirit in your life, you never will. You will just go on content to listen to the lies of your church. Very sad.
How presumptuous of you to say that Petronski doesn’t have the Holy Spirit in his life.
Looking for the fruit, Pyro, just looking for the fruit.
It seems your definition of “fruit” is not believing the “lies” of the Catholic Church.
Well, the problem for me is that IMO Matthew 16:18 does not provide that kind of promise. But knowing that you're coming from that end, we can still have the discussion around the concept, so long as we're arguing the concept itself, and not arguing the exact interpretation of that one verse.
I would define "the Church" as being "all of those who obey the Great Commission, and who make the same profession as Peter." To a lesser extent, I might argue that what constitutes "the profession of Peter" includes what's contained in the orthodox creeds. I know that you and I would not agree on the list of what constitutes the "orthodox creeds" - I do think that we could agree on a subset of that list, however. Moreso (for the sake of the evangelical lurkers reading this) I am emphatically not suggesting that a profession of the creeds is required for eternal salvation. I am suggesting (and note that I only said suggesting) that a profession of a creed is required for covenantal self-identification with the earthly, visible Church.
The important point to get out of this is that I'm defining the church as "those who believe the profession", not "those whose ancestors believed the profession." The absolute common element I want the reader to get here is that, from age to age, I believe in the preservation of a creedal continuity, not an apostolic continuity. I believe that there can be a discontinuity in apostolic continuity, while still preserving a church "in orthodoxy" via creedal continuity.
Think of it this way: I believe that there will always be a Church that makes the same profession that Peter does in Matthew 16:16. I believe that God will "raise sons of Abraham out of the stones" if need be to do this, and that such sons are legitimate - every bit as legitimate as those sons who can trace an unbroken temporal lineage back to the first century church, provided that each makes the same profession as Peter. And I'll go one step further than that - I do not believe that scripture demands that these "sons" need all belong to a single organizational structure. Adherence to the profession defines whether they are truly members or not, whether said professors recognize each other or not. Creedal unity does not necc. produce ecclesiastical unity. IMO it can, should, and will if the professors are consistent in all areas of their beliefs, but I would not negate their legitimacy if they are not in ecclesiastical unison. People are imperfect.
That said (whew), we still haven't fully defined what "preserved in orthodoxy" means, or what constitutes "the profession of Peter", i.e. or what bare minimum measure of orthodoxy (profession) is needed to qualify as being "preserved". I'll leave that to be addressed in another post.
No, not at all. It’s the demeaning and rotten things he says about anyone he doesn’t agree with that show us his fruit. He’s cruel and nasty.
These things are so clear and so straight forward in the scriptures that it seems totally irrational to deny them. But with some groups, it doesn't matter what the scriptures say, because church leaders or teachers are paramount rather than the authority of the Word of God itself. We should understand (though not condone) that this is the way it has to be with them because that is the only way they can claim that the clear context and text, doesn't "REALLY" mean what it says. By not having the Word as ultimate authority, but church, they can make these claims in their private interpretation of scripture, and arbitrary defining of terms. The normal process of hermeneutics does not allow us to force upon the scriptures the idea that Mary had no other Children, ever! Both the context of the sentences as well as the common usage of these words and structure elsewhere, testifies that this refers to Jesus Christ, His Mother, Sisters and Brethren. ...Not cousins, or brethren (as in Church members). In all matters of doctrine, it seems to always boil down to the same common denominator. What is our Authority? Is it God, where we receive and obey God's Word as the ultimate authority, or is it man, where we receive and obey our teachers words as the authority? Those who reject scripture in favor of their teachers (no matter what religion) have another authority other than that of the Bible. And as long as they do, they will never come to any agreement with any scripture unless their church leaders (man) says they can (or God decides to open their eyes). Our hope and prayer is that God will open many eyes. The true believer doesn't need to build Mary up, she is already Blessed and honoured. Yes, Mary was a chosen vessel and was blessed of God to bear the Lord, but she must not be set up as a idol, or prayer tower, or intercessor. There is one intercessor and it is Jesus Christ. Let us not lose sight of that. There is one Mediator between God and man, and one redemptrix and it's the Lord Jesus Christ. And the idea of mary as a Co-redemptrix is anathema. We don't have to artificially make her Holy, she is Holy just like all the rest of God's Chosen vessels. ..by the Blood of Christ.""...we can know that Jesus had at least four brothers and at least two sisters. The brothers names were, James, Joses, Simon and Judas, and one of the sister's names was Salome. We are unaware of the name of the other.
100, and why not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.