A Thinking Reed

Pope Notes

Written by

Lee M.

in

Inevitably, folks want to claim as renowned a personage as John Paul II as one of their own – as favoring their own particular political program. With that caveat in mind, here are a couple of interesting pieces on John Paul and his relation to American politics:

From the latter:

The viewpoint least congenial to the Pope’s views happens to be the faux-libertarian/jingoist mindset prominent in Blogistan (the right-wing hemisphere of the blogosphere). After all, by their standards the Pope was quite the “idiotarian.” He was wrong on their favorite issue — the War on Terror. Not only did he oppose the Iraqi invasion, he also opposed the first Gulf War and the Clinton Administration’s Serbian venture. Morever, this opposition was not founded on some Democratic ‘realist’ interpretation of the national interest, but of a more-or-less pacifist framework. Violence, bad.

Of course, insofar as the faux-libertarian view extends towards abortion, stem cell research, the Schiavo case, etc., the Pope was at odds there as well.

Meanwhile, in the category of “Love the Pope, Not the Papacy,” Confessing Evangelical and Here We Stand both post on the limits of Protestant admiration for popery (See here, here & here).

John at CE makes the astute observation that some Protestants have perhaps been too eager to elevate co-belligerence on “culture war” issues over genuine theological disagreements that remain between them and Rome.

For my part, I’m sort of ambivalent about the papacy. As a Lutheran I naturally can’t accept the claims that it makes for itself. And yet, it does seem to me to be a good thing that there is an instutionalized trans-national Christian witness that isn’t beholden to any one national or secular political agenda (as the World Council of Churches all too often seems to be). Is there a form of the papacy that Protestants could accept – one divested of its claims to infallibility, say?

Comments

7 responses to “Pope Notes”

  1. Joshie

    At the risk of being a what-if-er, I have long wondered whether, if Luther was around today, he would still think a reformation of the RCC was necessary.

    I think Vatican II hinted at something that would be more acceptable to Lutherans, Anglicans and Easterners in the idea of collegiality (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church III.22) among all bishops in the C/church, where decisions theological and otherwise are made by the college of bishops and not from one man, although the Roman bishop remains the dean of the college, as it were.
    As much as I love and adore John-Paul II, I think his papacy was a step backward in collegiality. By virtue of his enormous intellect and theological prowess he tended to be overly monachical and extend collegiality only to his theological friends and allies like Ratzinger. I think papal infalibility as it is CURRENTLY understood remains a barrier to true collegiality though.

    A more federalized stystem like that which existed in the early middle ages or one that currently exists in the Eastern Orthodox or Anglican communions would be the best way to go.

    Christ did pray that we might all be one as he and the father are one. I still hold out hope that we can all be reunited soon on earth as we will be in heaven!

    Reply
  2. John H

    Joshie – Luther was always very clear-sighted about the fact that the problem with Rome was not papal rule vs collegiality, or any of the other issues that have excited debate between different church communions over the years (veneration of saints, etc), but the Gospel of justification by faith alone on account of Christ alone. I have no doubt that Luther would say that Rome is remains in serious error on this issue.

    Reply
  3. Joshie

    Luther had a wide range of concerns about the papacy including the endorsement of indulgences, the forgiveness of sins and purgatory, and the financing of the new St. Peter’s Basilica, just to name a few in the 95 theses.

    Do you think that Rome is still “in error” on this issue even after the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification where the RCC stated along with a Lutheran body that a consensus on justification by faith had been reached in both traditions and that the Lutheran understanding of Justification by Faith was not in conflict with the Council of Trent?

    I’d be interested to know what you think of the statements in that declaration.

    Reply
  4. Kevin Jones

    “Is there a form of the papacy that Protestants could accept – one divested of its claims to infallibility, say?”

    John Paul II actually sent out the first part of your question to all non-Catholic Christians. I’m not sure if any Protestants have responded, but First Things had a piece on a Frenchman, a convert from atheism to Orthodoxy, who replied to the papal request with a book.

    Reply
  5. Lee

    Though I haven’t studied the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ), many Lutherans question how much consensus has actually been achieved. Especially after Rome offered its “clarifications” where it basically reiterated some of the anathemas of Trent.

    For instance, as I understand it, Lutherans and Rome still differ on whether justification consists in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, whether our own “infused” righteousness merits reward, the simul justus et peccator, etc.

    Beyond that there is the all-important question of ecclessiology. From a Lutheran perspective Rome still makes demands (e.g. communion with the bishop of Rome) that Lutherans can only regard as “add ons” to the Gospel. The Augsburg Confession states that it is enough for the unity of the Church to have agreement on the preaching of the Gospel & the administration of the Sacraments. Anything beyond that falls under the heading of adiaphora.

    Reply
  6. Joshie

    This is not the place to comment on whether I think either tradition “gets it right” on the issue of justification from a biblical and patristic point of view but it seems to me a big step nevertheless. They have agreed in principle on the issue of justification by faith and taken a tentitive step toward reconciliation and toward fulfilling Christ’s call for unity in His “one, holy and apostolic church”.

    I’m sure idealogues on all sides dissaprove of statements like the joint declaration, but it always has amazed me that many of those who scream loudest about sola scriptura or about the apostolic nature of the church are the very ones who refuse to heed the biblical call to unity in Christ.

    Reply
  7. Lee

    I think one thing that merits thinking about is what “unity” would look like – i.e. what is it we’re working toward? Intercommunion? Sharing of clergy? Institutional mergers? (I assume that even in a “reunited” church there will always be theological disagreements – just as there are within churches now.)

    Reply

Leave a comment

More posts