Talk:Papacy
From Theopedia
This article could be much better!
A couple of things need to be corrected here.
1) The title "Pope" does not only apply to the head of the Catholic Church. It applies also to the heads of the (a) Greek Orthodox Church, and of the (b) Coptic Orthodox Church.
2) I understand that this is an outreach with a point of view. But the phrase "contra Matthew 23:9" needs to be dropped: it is an unnecessary attack, and makes you look rather selective in your verse picking: consider Philemon 10, or 1 Corinthians 4:14-15.
3) "At this stage one can speak of a single "pope" as we know today albeit in a much different form as many powers and privileges were bestowed as time progressed." bestowed by whom? By God? By the Church? By his supporters? By the Councils? By the Holy Spirit? Claimed seems more historically accurate (without getting into the reasons nor the warrant) appropriate, and (without providing more context) even bolsters your POV that the Pope is wrong about the claims he makes.
4) "whereas the historical evidence provides no basis for Peter ever having been a bishop": This needs support. What is the historical evidence you are looking to?
5) "nor was he in Rome for any length of time." Again, what is your evidence? Whatever it is, it is very weak. Remember the phrase "the whore of Babylon" from the Apocalypse? For years this phrase was applied to the Catholic Church by many Protestant groups: why? Because a great deal of historians agree that "Babylon" is code for Rome (and the worst possible juridical body these groups of Protestants could think of was the catholic Church with the Papacy at Rome, and hence made the identification). It is a very slim minority of historians who don't think that the "Babylon" referred to in the New Testament is Rome. Therefore, given 1 Peter 5:13, many historians, with reason believe that it is most certainly possible for Peter to have been in Rome! If you are willing to rely on minority historical support, then you need to at least acknowledge that you are taking one side of the historical controversy, and that there is another side which is quite sensible.
6) It would be great if you provided the entire quote by Irenaeus. The real quote does not directly justify your claim. The text needs a specific interpretation (relying on your prior unjustified claim that Peter was not a Bishop) to read that Linus is the first Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus (see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html) first spends Paragraph 2 of Book III, Chapter III praising the Church of Rome, mentioning that Peter and Paul founded it. (Note that this contradicts your claim that Peter was never at Rome). Then, in paragraph 3, he mentions that "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate." This quote is silent as to whether Peter or Paul might be bishops themselves. Certainly, this quote does not say that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome. It says that the apostles ordained him to the episcopacy, and place Linus in a chain that starts with the Apostles (as founders, if not as bishops), and then continue through all the subsequent bishops of Rome (up to the time of Irenaeus). Even if you do not want to acknowledge that Peter was the first bishop of Rome (because he was not a Bishop, presumably), you have to acknowledge that Peter and Paul initiated the chain of the bishops of Rome, if you are to follow the quote of Irenaeus. It seems to me that quoting only part of what Irenaeus says (and an interpreted part at that) is intellectually dishonest. You should not quote him if you are going to quote him out of context. And if you quote him, then you must admit that it is possible for the bishops of Rome to claim some link to "the authority bestowed on Peter" by Jesus Christ. All in all, to keep your POV and remain intellectually honest, you should really skip mention or Irenaeus (who explicitly states many other times that one should be united to the Church of Rome to not be a heretic). At the very least, you should qualify that many of the statements Irenaeus makes must be wrong, as he was an rabid Papist.
7) "Whilst Peter's apostolic authority is evident in the New Testament, nowhere does he assume a special leadership role above other apostles nor is this otherwise indicated.": This sentence is the result of an interpretation which ignores more than a few verses that could be interpreted otherwise (for example: Luke 22:32, John 21:17, and Matthew 16:18-19). It would be better to rephrase it as: nowhere is any special leadership role clearly and unambiguously articulated.
8) The tiny paragraph labeled "the broken line of Popes" needs a very through revision.
(a) It is rather incredible to me that the Popes were entirely wicked, without redeeming graces. Every man has a good side, and an evil side. Certainly it is true that power tends to accentuate every man's evil side. Does your POV really require you to believe that the Popes have no redeeming qualities? Really? None of them were at any point inspired by the love of God? Really? I would dare you to point to the instances when Pope Benedict XVI bought the Papacy or murdered for the Papacy. At the very least it needs to be made more clear that you speak of particular periods of time, or even, if you really want to give no ground to "those sneaky Catholics", that you specify that whereas there seems to be a trend of bad Papacies, not every Pope was just short of being the devil incarnate (I gathered this impression when I read the paragraph).
(b) "where disputes could not be resolved." This is simply incorrect. There might have been a time when disputes where resolved in three different ways, and for which reason, the true resolution of the dispute was in question. But such a time has passed. The majority of the disputes which were in question during "The Great Schism" have been in fact resolved.
(c) The title of the paragraph has nothing to do with the Pope bashing sentences below it. What you want to say (if I infer correctly from the title) is that because of the "Great Schism" (when there were three Popes running around---with different people supporting a different Pope as the true Pope) somehow the "unbroken line" of the Papacy was broken. Currently the two sentences in the section do not support the title. Note: your POV might prohibit you from being more fair to the Catholics on this one, but if you were to ask a Catholic, you might get the answer that Apostolic succession does not mean an "unbroken line of Popes", but rather, an "unbroken line of validly ordained bishops". There was a dispute as to which of three persons in question was the Pope, but there was not a doubt that any of them were validly ordained bishops (and so, whoever became Pope---for whatever reason, deservedly, or undeservedly, justly, or unjustly---the line of validly ordained bishops continued).
Ltcomdata 04:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
