This is a continuation of part I. You can read this post on its own, but some of the assumptions I make here (about what must be true for the papacy, as currently utilized by the Roman Catholic Church, to be a valid doctrine) are argued in that prior post.
In this post, I want to examine the tradition of the papacy in the earliest church (AD 33 - 180). Why this time period? Well, the number of sources are limited enough to examine in one post and, as the earliest time period of the church, we ought to expect the papacy (if it is Holy Tradition) to at least appear in seedling form during this time. In other words, based on the definition of catholicity given in part I, this is a critical time period to examine for the case for the papacy.
Showing posts with label Papacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Papacy. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
On the Validity of the Papacy, Part I
This is the first of a series of posts I'd like to do about the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy. To me, this doctrine represents the principle separation between Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity; these being the two largest Christian traditions on the planet, this issue has a high degree of relevance for our common pursuit of Christian unity.
Protestants, too, look on this debate with great interest. Not only do they (like the Orthodox) disagree with the Roman Catholic perspective on the papacy, but they tend to view Roman Catholic and Orthodox disagreement over this issue as evidence that tradition in general ought to be rejected. Answering this issue, then, becomes important for the general unity of all Christians (with about half of Christianity accepting the papacy as articulated by the Roman Catholic Church and the other half rejecting it).
The papacy, though, for all of its centrality, is a multi-layered and complex doctrine. The doctrine is also unique within Christianity because not only is the effective doctrine itself a Holy Tradition, but the very warrant given FOR that doctrine is ALSO Holy Tradition. It is not sufficient to accept the papacy as the center of unity within the college of bishops (or even that, because of this centrality, the pope possesses limited infallibility). This practical outworking of the doctrine of the papacy certainly IS Holy Tradition to the Roman Catholic, but the reasons behind that practical outworking must also be accepted. This means the unique Petrine succession of the Roman bishop must be the reason for the Pope's unique authority (and no other reason - such as the centrality of Rome as the capitol of the empire in the early church - is acceptable).
In this first post, I just want to lay out the range of what it is that Roman Catholics must demonstrate in order for the papacy to be considered Holy Tradition. In subsequent posts I'll work through each layer of the doctrine and examine it on historical, as well as theological, grounds.
To the jump...
Protestants, too, look on this debate with great interest. Not only do they (like the Orthodox) disagree with the Roman Catholic perspective on the papacy, but they tend to view Roman Catholic and Orthodox disagreement over this issue as evidence that tradition in general ought to be rejected. Answering this issue, then, becomes important for the general unity of all Christians (with about half of Christianity accepting the papacy as articulated by the Roman Catholic Church and the other half rejecting it).
The papacy, though, for all of its centrality, is a multi-layered and complex doctrine. The doctrine is also unique within Christianity because not only is the effective doctrine itself a Holy Tradition, but the very warrant given FOR that doctrine is ALSO Holy Tradition. It is not sufficient to accept the papacy as the center of unity within the college of bishops (or even that, because of this centrality, the pope possesses limited infallibility). This practical outworking of the doctrine of the papacy certainly IS Holy Tradition to the Roman Catholic, but the reasons behind that practical outworking must also be accepted. This means the unique Petrine succession of the Roman bishop must be the reason for the Pope's unique authority (and no other reason - such as the centrality of Rome as the capitol of the empire in the early church - is acceptable).
In this first post, I just want to lay out the range of what it is that Roman Catholics must demonstrate in order for the papacy to be considered Holy Tradition. In subsequent posts I'll work through each layer of the doctrine and examine it on historical, as well as theological, grounds.
To the jump...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)