The Pope: Agent of Division

Let me say at the beginning that I consider the Roman Church very much akin to the Ancient Faith of the Eastern Orthodox. It is a brother Church (although there are hoards of believers on either side that will object to my saying so) and the pope is not an Anti-Christ as Luther claimed although the characterization is raised by a early Pope himself; the Church's persistence in truth only seems to be in spite of the papacy at times. Nonetheless, I have great affection for the Roman Church despite the shortcomings of its Papacy. It retains the community of Saints and the possibility of saintliness; it rejects the complete depravity of man that Luther and Calvin claim. The Eucharist is the still central to worship, worship not being simply a good feeling during "praise and worship" accompanied by blaring contemporary Christian Rock Music. Baptism is not just a symbol or statement of faith but a remission of sins and initiation into Christian Life. They continue to honor Mary as Mother of God, not simply a receptacle for baby Jesus and thus a worthy of the Biblical adoration: "Hail Mary, full of favor!" Confession is present as it was in the Early Church. Much of what they do closely resembles the Early Church, nearly as much as the Eastern Orthodox. Alas there is the Magisterial Papacy as a huge stumbling block to unity.

The best one can say about the Magisterial Papacy is that it was an agent for reform and independence of the Western Church against the Civil governments control of the Church, early in the 2nd Millennium as well as a object of reform by the Holy Roman Emporer. In it's errancy the Roman Church purports to be the universal Church. Unity of the contemporary Roman Church is maintained around this magisterial Pope, who rules autocratically over the flock. The Oriental (Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, etc.) and the Eastern Orthodox are ignored. Yes, the Eastern Church recently has been given its due as the "Right Lung" of the Church. Yet, the Roman Bishop retains his ascendancy over the entire church in contradiction to these Ancients Faiths. One of the main ideas is without this ascendant Roman Bishop the church would simply splitter like all the Protestants. I would argue that the reverse, that without the magisterial Pope, Christendom could still be united.

The basis of Rome's authority lies in large part on interpretation of Scripture largely ignored by current day Protestants and given great importance by the Romans. The verse Matt 16:18"... I say to you are Peter and upon this rock I build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". St. Peter spent the last years of his life in Rome, where he suffered martyrdom. In other words the head and authority of the Church was given to St. Peter and his successors. The Roman Popes avow that the St. Peter's mantle has been passed on to them as Bishops of Rome, in the Apostolic Succession, St. Peter being the first Bishop. The power and authority claimed by the Roman Popes grew until the pope argued for total ascendancy over the whole body of the Church and at one point even civil authorities. The majority of the Church, Orthodox, Protestant, Oriental has vehemently disagreed with this interpretation of Pope as Spiritual King lording over all Christendom.

Let me say, Christ is the head of the Church not his vicar. When the apostles argued who would be first in the future Messianic kingdom, Jesus, Our Lord, admonishes them, saying the First shall be last, the servant is the leader. On the other hand Protestants tend to ignore Episcopal authority. Since the Bible being fully authoritative, when interpreted individually, allows each to be his own pope. St. Paul says that the church was not to be built on one person: neither Apollo nor Paul himself. There's another fact arguing against the ascendancy of the Bishop of Rome; St. Peter was bishop of Antioch, but he probably wasn't Bishop of Rome, where he spent his last days.

Some medievalists argued, Occam for one, that the Pope that errors ceases to be pope. Interestingly, Pope Honorius, in the Early Church's controversy over the nature of Christ erred according to the Whole Church and later Popes thus flying in the face of the dogma an infallible Pope. Pope Honorius was anathematized for centuries for ruling Christ only had one will, the human will being subsumed within the divine as argued the adherents of Monothelitism.

Astoundingly Pope Gregory the Great of the 7th century wrote, "I say without the least hesitation , whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, THE PRECURSOR OF THE ANTI-CHRIST, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others." That's tough to square with the current understanding of the Roman Church of the supreme Holy Father.

At the time of the Protestant Reformation the Church was in need of reform, as opposed to those who deem the Reformation simply misdirected, mean spirited, evil or mostly driven by social and economic forces. Church offices were being sold, simony was rampant. The Roman leadership had been greatly influenced by humanism whose extravagant paintings, sculpture and architecture including St. Peter's Basilica caused consternation to the faithful. The Papal states were always foremost in the Popes' mind. At least one Pope, Julius II, led the papal armies into battle several times and confirmed the Popes soveriengty over them. The Roman Church showed itself incapable of reform. It fell to the 16th century Kings, princes, dukes, etc. to reform and in many cases glad they were because it became a great land grab. The Churches vast confiscated land holdings become prizes for the reforming regents. The Western Church became severed just as the Latin Church forced schism with the Eastern Church.

One especially tragic consequence of the Papal monarchy was falling away of the English Church. English King Henry VIII, a devout Catholic, desired an annulment from childless Catherine, Queen and sister to the Powerful King of the Hapsburg Empire, Charles VI. If power had been decentralized, a Bishop could have grant the divorce as they were on a rare occasion given (i.e. Eleanor of Acquitaine was granted divorce of King Louis VII of France in the 12th Century). However the Roman Pope's efforts were to welfare of his Papal states. Charles VI was poised to invade Rome, if Pope Clement had granted a divorce and he would have suffered the loss or invasion of the papacy's precious Papal States. How precious these were can be demonstrated again and again. When the Papal States were lost upon the reunion of Italy in 1870, despite the Pope's sending into battle his pathetic Papal Army, the Pope refused to recognize the loss despite a promised annual payment in the millions in compensation from the Italian government. In 1929 a Concordant with Mussolini finalized the loss of the Papal States some 59 years later. So the English Church was sent adrift and was taken over by Protestant Reformers and cemented by the land grab of Church Lands that were soon sold to what was to become the Landed Gentry; no more staunch Protestants could be found than they. Return of the Roman Church would have meant return of the lands, you see. So the majestic Pope with all power in his hands was paralyzed by the threat of loss of the Papal States, his primary focus not the health of the Church, and the English Church unable to act for its own good being fully submitted to Rome. So much for a magisterial pope here.

To cement his authority the Roman Bishop declared himself to be Infallible in 1870. There was great opposition to this ruling by the 1st Vatican Council, stacked with Italian Bishops. Frightfully ironic, one pope argues against it and the Franciscans argued for it in the Middles Ages. Pope Nicholas III (1277-80) had favored the Franciscans by declaring that "communal renunciation of property was a possible way to salvation" Pope John XXII 1316-1334 refuted the idea of infallibility by changing that edict; the Franciscans arguing heatedly to the contrary that he, the Holy Father, was indeed infallible and the original judgment couldn't be changed. Today of course this dogma due to its patent absurdity it has been dumbed down to only when the Pope speaks EX Cathedra (in the papal Chair) on matters of doctrine and morals.... which he never does of course.... well, almost never. So we can ignore 99.99% percent of what he says it would seem.

It is virtually unknown that about a century before the Reformation a conciliar movement attempted to reform the papacy. This belies the idea that the Church had no other idea of its government than the transcendent Roman Bishop throughout its history. It's little known that Council of Constance, 1414-1418, called by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund, adjudicated a dispute between three rival Popes in the early 15th century. And attempts were made to have a council as governing body convene every few years. They issued Haec Sancta which read:

legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members. It was deemed a gathering of bishops, Cardinals, learned theologians and abbots would have ascendancy over just one Bishop of Rome.

All 3 current popes were either deposed or resigned, the one in Avignon, the one in Pisa and the Roman and a new Pope Martin V was elected. It could be said that without the council the rival popes would have continued to battle among themselves leaving a divided Western Christianity. The Christian Church embodied within the Pope, not in the Council of Bishops, shows itself to be be a source of division.

John Hus, an earlier Reformer desiring to give the laity both bread and wine at the eucharist and given safe conduct to the Council of Constance, was nonetheless burned at the stake. I assume as a warning to the faithful against the dangers of heresy. This was to have great repercussions with a later Reformer. Popes regained their ascendancy. In conjunction with secular sovereigns the popes throughout the 15th century once again gathered power around itself which set itself up to be assailed by the Protestant Reformation, led by secular authorities in large part. Among whom was Martin Luther, who looking back at the burning at the stake of John Hus, rejected the Council and saw them as flawed as well. Only the Holy Scripture could be authoritative, the doctrine of Sole Scriptura.

In the 16th century the Papacy remained disinterested or adverse to reform of the church. After the results of the division were made manifest and efforts towards union dead, the Papacy reluctantly called the Council of Trent to reform the Church, ever fearful of the Councils and their power to call ascendancy.

Could reforms in terms of sale of church offices and simony stopped the tsunami of the Reformers? Great question. Luther, in his criticism of the Papacy, prompted by the sale of Indulgences, gathered great public support. But he was sheltered by the Duke of Saxony an elector of the vacant Holy Roman Empire. Once again politics of the Papal States plays its part. The Roman Pope wanted to retain influence on who would become the Emperor; France had recently invaded Italian States and occupied Rome itself in the early 1500's. Once again Luther couldn't be dealt with harshly without offending the Elector; Luther was free to propagate his Reformed doctrines. And the Pope's focus wasn't on addressing Luther's objections and criticisms but health of the Papal States, his primary focus. So the Church shatters under the office of the Papacy as the main focal point of the Reform and opposition.

The Church was meant to be directed in matters of dogma by the Councils, the writings of the Church Fathers, the Saints, by the Church's Liturgical Truth in agreement with the whole church and the deposit of faith. This is what happened in the first 8 or 9 centuries of the Church. Schism occurred when the Roman church after continued claims not only of Primacy, always recognized by the whole Church, but extra ecclesiastical, monarchical prerogatives, broke from the Eastern Church. 450 years later itself was splintered. If it could only recognize how much damage has been done in the office of the Papacy.

Finally all before has been said only with an eye to unity for all the ancient sacramental churches, Byzantine, Coptic, Armenian, Roman and the rest. This criticism is not meant to denigrate the Roman Church but give light to its divisive history. The Church is authoritative, the pillar and foundation of the Truth, 1 Tim 3:15. To my Pr0testant brothers, rightfully wishing to Reform the Church in the 16th century, we are not our own popes; each deciding the correctness of Bible exegesis and doctrine without reference to the Church. The Church, One and True and Spotless, is first and foremost. Any attempts at reform must be made within her unless the Church itself is led outside the truth which has been held always, everywhere and by all; the parameters of the truth for the Church, that the ancient father, St. Vicent of Lorins laid down.

The "new" kid on the block, Monarchial Papacy, in contrast to Conciliar Eastern Orthodoxy, claims she's the only one one rightfully in the neighborhood, chastising her wayward children, the Protestants, forgetting her parents, the Ancient Orthodox.