Tuesday, June 07, 2011

The Papacy is Fundamentally Dishonest

One of the things I like about this work, “How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church?”, is that it’s a “snapshot” of the current discussion going on in the “high-level discussions” that are taking place in conjunction with “official” Rome. It’s real-life; major theologians are discussing real issues as they really are.

This work itself is described as preliminary, but the “ecumenical discussion” has continued to meet on a regular basis, and it is noted in the preface that another “dialogue document will be published with their conclusions in the near future.”

Keep in mind that these are theologians, not “the official magisterium,” and so, we are likely to see some suggestions here that won’t be adopted.

But in that regard, it’s interesting to note the things that are agreed upon, at “high levels”, and the things that are still open for discussion.

I’ve been chastised for relying on the work of various scholars – the name Peter Lampe comes to mind, but Eamon Duffy, Raymond Brown, and “liberal” scholars (especially “liberal” Roman Catholic scholars). But I’ve already cited both a Roman Catholic insider Archbishop and a Lutheran scholar saying things that I’ve said for years. “The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West.” There are “clear historical gaps” in the “unbroken succession” language claims of various Roman doctrinal statements. These things should no longer be in question, even for the most “enthusiastic” Roman supporters. Stories of an “sacramental priesthood” going back to Christ and the New Testament are just that – stories. Fiction. Fantasy. Make-believe. Those Roman Catholics among you who have “gone home” because of these stories need to rethink your motives.

Further, John P. Meier, a leading Catholic Biblical scholar, makes the statement, “A papacy that cannot give a credible historical account of its own origins can hardly hope to be a catalyst for unity among divided Christians.” So the implication is that, until this point, the papacy has not given a “credible historical account of its own origins.” I’ve been saying that as well.

One wants to ask, yet again, why is the infallible church in a position, after many centuries, not yet in a position to “give a credible historical account of its own origins.” The accounts that it has given are “not credible.” Not believable. Wrong. Fabrications.


“The Historical Facts Are Not Disputed”
And Herman Pottmeyer, another individual who’s been involved in these discussions for years, noted, “Anyone who wishes to come to an understanding of the papal ministry cannot avoid dealing with the history of this ministry. The historical facts are not disputed, but their theological evaluation is contentious.”

For me, there is a sense of vindication from this. Rome has been floundering over this topic. But really now, there was not a “bishop of Rome” until late in the second century. And the Eastern Orthodox never did accept the Roman understanding of the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Those items are now “not disputed”.

On the other hand, this work gives the appearance of a kissy-faced love-fest. The fix is in.

The discussions are being held at a virtual resort center, the International Bridgettine Centre in Farfa Sabina, “located in the idyllic village of Farfa in the Mountains of Sabina, surrounded by forest clad hills, vineyards and olive groves – around one hour’s drive northeast of Rome and a similar distance from Fiumicino Airport. It is housed in buildings that are part of a massive complex that since early medieval times formed part of an important Benedictine monastery that for centuries was one of the most important monastic centres of Western history.”

So it’s a resort. Rome is wining and dining these individuals, with the hope of persuading them to “see things our way”.

The real work of this effort is the “theological evaluation” that is going on. They are talking about a “re-reception” of Vatican I. The “maximalist” interpretations of Vatican I are clearly what’s causing the ecumenical angst. Could not Vatican I be “re-interpreted” according to a hermeneutical principle that is not so offensive to our Orthodox and Protestant colleagues?

What they are doing here, is throwing out the conscious understanding of 1000 years or more of papacy. It is being “re-received”. Whatever that means.

Let’s do a thought experiment. When I say “ the historic papacy,” what do you think of? The papacy of the middle ages? Pope Leo I, with Roman Law underpinning his supposed authority? The Donation of Constantine or the “Pseudo-Isidorian falsifications of the eighth century”? Gregory VII (Hildebrand) and his dictatus papae – “the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness” – Boniface VII and his – “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”? The Great Schism? The Borgias and their bribery, nepotism? Vatican I, “perpetual successors”, “constant custom” and papal infallibility ex cathedra?

No, it’s time to throw all of that out. No apologies, just winks and nods all around. Have another glass of wine, my friend. It’s time to have a “re-reception” of Vatican I. Certain “maximalist” “interpretations” that “held sway” for 15 centuries really were mistaken. Not only is the history mistaken, but the theology of it, too, was misunderstood. Wrong. Fabrications.

We need to “find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission.” We’ve never exercised it properly. We don’t yet know what’s “essential to its mission.” We need to have ecumenical symposia to find these things.

What we are seeing is the new modus operandi of Rome as described by Raymond Brown: “Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time.”

Once more with gusto: “Let’s get it right this time guys.”

33 comments:

  1. John

    You should give the church credit for even entertaining the questions and concerns of such a diverse set of individuals. But you won’t. It is all part of the conspiracy right?

    The webpage you quoted, without citing, is a book review by "Catholic Book Review" sums it up:

    They are asking what teachings relative to a Petrine Ministry if any would have to be updated or re-interpreted for a new day; that is, what new forms, theologically and practically speaking, could the teachings take in terms of the actual exercise of papal primacy and infallibility for non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities to “receive” the teachings?...How to do so without compromising the defined dogmas of papal primacy and infallibility the Roman Catholic Church believes faithfully interpret and serve divine revelation is an overarching question.

    So John, I hate to be a wet noodle but…congratulations. You have found a theological book which seeks to frame the question of the papacy in a diverse modern world. As a result, ideas are hypothesized and scenarios are imagined. This is theological work in action.

    Lastly, the way you wiggle yourself into concluding in triumph that the ‘facts are not disputed’ is hilarious. You go from person to person and from fraction of a statement to fraction of a statement and then your mind takes over. Nowhere does Hermann Pottmeyer say that there was no bishop of Rome until the 2nd century but you have managed to make it look as if he said that. Clever but I do not think this would pass in any peer reviewed context. In other words – a man on a mission who has a few books and a blog can be a dangerous thing to people who are concerned with facts.

    Now - excuse me as I prepare to finish planning the details of my trip to Rome next year where I will, among other things, sit in an audience to hear the successor of St. Peter in person.

    ReplyDelete
  2. G'bye. Don't forget to write.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The webpage you quoted, without citing, is a book review by "Catholic Book Review" sums it up:

    I was citing Cardinal Walter Kasper. He's in the book, you know.

    Nowhere does Hermann Pottmeyer say that there was no bishop of Rome until the 2nd century but you have managed to make it look as if he said that.

    This was a conference. They were all in one place. They all knew what the others were saying. I cited Reumann directly. The historical facts were not in question. There was no disagreement on them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John.

    What you are reading are individual essays from a diverse set of backgrounds.

    You cannot have a Lutheran write something like "the papacy did not exist in the 1st century" and then attribute that to other people who were in the same room! How dishonest is that? This is a symposium where - by design - different viewpoints are discussed in a charitable environment. That Pottmeyer is not recorded as standing up and challenging Rueman to a duel or something is not even to be expected.

    This cuts both ways. I would be willing to bet my annual income that there are statements in this book that are 100% in line with the historical claims of the Catholic Church. It would be quite easy to find such statements and then start a blog and dishonestly accuse the Reformed scholars present of having those views. But I would not do that because it is so utterly reckless and smacks of bad faith.

    John – can I ask a question? What is your educational background?

    ReplyDelete
  5. What you are reading are individual essays from a diverse set of backgrounds.

    Right. Different backgrounds. All in one place. Reading papers. Yucking it up. Having drinks together. They all know what they're talking about. And Pottmeyer says, "no dispute on the historical facts," which had also been presented. What's controversial about that?

    I would be willing to bet my annual income that there are statements in this book that are 100% in line with the historical claims of the Catholic Church.

    It's true. So keep your money. Minnerath gives the entire "petrine theology" and then, at the end, says that business about the East never having accepted it.

    John – can I ask a question? What is your educational background?

    Why does this matter to you? If you don't like what I'm writing, just change the channel. You can do that for free.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why does this matter to you? If you don't like what I'm writing, just change the channel. You can do that for free.


    Because you are wading in pretty deep water and have demonstrated a lack of concern for accurately reporting what you are finding.

    It is flatly irresponsible to proclaim things that are not true. To put words into a person’s mouth to serve your polemical aims because they were in the same room as another guy.

    I would assume that you have no formal training as a person with formal training and any experience publishing peer reviewed work would not be so reckless.

    I would change the channel but you are also attempting to sell your ill conceived theories on the Catholic Answers blog. You won’t get very far with it over there, I am certain.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Because you are wading in pretty deep water and have demonstrated a lack of concern for accurately reporting what you are finding.

    What is inaccurate? Get the book, look up these guys, see what they are saying.

    It is flatly irresponsible to proclaim things that are not true.

    Rome is the master of this. Rome is the one without "a credible historical account of its own origins".

    Think about it this way. If the "historical facts" at this point are not true, then for 1600+ years, it is Rome that has "proclaimed things that are not true."

    Things like Peter's 25+ year bishopric in Rome.

    Honest to gosh, I'm nobody in history, whereas Rome has dominated history. Who should be *more accountable*?

    Where was Rome's "peer review" when these popes were proclaiming these things?

    You're not responding rationally here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would change the channel but you are also attempting to sell your ill conceived theories on the Catholic Answers blog. You won’t get very far with it over there, I am certain.

    Yeah, they're refuting me big-time over there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. KRISTEN SAID:

    “Clever but I do not think this would pass in any peer reviewed context.”

    Are Kristen’s comments peer reviewed?

    “In other words – a man on a mission who has a few books and a blog can be a dangerous thing to people who are concerned with facts.”

    A woman on a mission accusing John of missionary motives.

    “Now - excuse me as I prepare to finish planning the details of my trip to Rome next year where I will, among other things, sit in an audience to hear the successor of St. Peter in person.”

    Why not eliminate the middleman and just attend a séance instead?

    “I would assume that you have no formal training as a person with formal training and any experience publishing peer reviewed work would not be so reckless.”

    I guess that Kristen would rather have us learn papal historz from men with formal training…like Hans Küng, Ignaz von Döllinger, &c.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I guess that Kristen would rather have us learn papal history from men with formal training…like Hans Küng, Ignaz von Döllinger, &c.

    I try not to mention Küng's name. Catholics see it and just dismiss everything else that's said.

    They can't dismiss a guy like Minnerath. They gotta contend with him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But she made "formal training" the criterion. So, by her own yardstick, Küng measures up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, but there must also be some other, unspoken criterion. Maybe she can articulate it for us.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "What we are seeing is the new modus operandi of Rome as described by Raymond Brown: “Past statements are not rejected but are requoted with praise and then reinterpreted at the same time.”"

    Oh my goodness! What a pithy, succinct, accurate, and highly amusing summation!

    By a highly lauded and recognized Catholic scholar of the first rank who's served on the Pontifical Biblical Commission no less.

    Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  14. KRISTEN SAID:

    "Now - excuse me as I prepare to finish planning the details of my trip to Rome next year where I will, among other things, sit in an audience to hear the successor of St. Peter in person."

    I thought Pius XII was dead. Wasn't he the last real pope? (a la Gerry Matatics).

    ReplyDelete
  15. in an audience to hear the successor of St. Peter in person

    Oooh, ask him whether Bob Sungenis is still part of The One Mother Church for me, please. I've been wanting to ask that, but he never replies to my emails.

    ReplyDelete
  16. More like the successor to Diotrephes.

    ReplyDelete
  17. KRISTEN SAID:

    “I would assume that you have no formal training as a person with formal training and any experience publishing peer reviewed work would not be so reckless.”

    Which instantly disqualifies Karl Keating, Dave Armstrong, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, &c.

    ReplyDelete
  18. John Bugay
    You have been found out fiddling with the truth and have been outed.

    You have been called to account for fiddling the books and no amount of bluster will mitigate the egregious words you have contrived to support your position.

    The honorable thing to do is apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm not fiddling with anything. My citation of him is perfectly legitimate. If other members of the same conference are making comments about "historical facts," and Pottmeyer says "the historical facts are not disputed," then my statement is perfectly fine.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "You cannot have a Lutheran write something like "the papacy did not exist in the 1st century" and then attribute that to other people who were in the same room! How dishonest is that? "

    I'm guessing Kristen didn't read very carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This look similar to what John wrote at Beggars blog.

    He was loose with citations and creative with his commentary.

    The only different thing is that at Beggars blog other Protestants called him on it but here nobody seems to care.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Urbani, why don't you actually find something wrong with what I've posted here, rather than just spread a smear? My guess is that (in fact I am certain) it's because there is nothing wrong here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Kristen said:

    Now - excuse me as I prepare to finish planning the details of my trip to Rome next year where I will, among other things, sit in an audience to hear the successor of St. Peter in person.

    Oh, do you mean Clement VII, Benedict XIII, and the other antipopes?

    ReplyDelete
  24. John.

    It is pretty obvious.

    You make sound like a man said something he did not say in order to propel your argument.

    One should not have to hold your hand to show you that this is dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Urbani: I quoted him as saying, "The historical facts are not disputed".

    Here is a link to the page, you can look it up yourself.

    And read on further, to see just how much he agrees with them.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Try an argument, a demonstration that John is wrong, Urbani. Your gratuitous assertions are tedious, at best.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Matthew.

    Here is argument:

    John represents Mr. Pottmeyer as concluding, "But really now, there was not a “bishop of Rome” until late in the second century."

    Yet Mr Pottmeyer did not say that there was no bishop or Rome until late in the second century.

    Thus, John Bugay is being dishonest with the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Right. Reumann says "there was not a “bishop of Rome” until late in the second century." Pottmeyer, later in the program says, "the historical facts are not disputed."

    I see why you would not be able to deal with that.

    ReplyDelete
  29. John.

    In the same book (I've been reading on Google) - Bishop Minerath says that the papacy is the divine plan of the Holy Spirit.

    I suppose that every writter who contributed an essay agrees with that statement.

    Thanks for helping me understand how it works. (That was sarcasm)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Kirsten,

    It's a standard type of argument to quote a spokesman for the opposing position who makes but makes frank admissions about certain weaknesses in the opposing position. For instance, there are evolutionary biologists who sometimes make candid statements about weaknesses in evolutionary theory, or the state of the evidence.

    The very fact that this is coming from someone who believes in evolution is what makes the admission all the more significant.

    When John quotes Catholic clerics or Catholic scholars who make damaging admissions about traditional prooftexts or traditional historical claims, it's a presupposition of his appeal that, notwithstanding their admissions, they continue to affirm the church of Rome.

    It's hardly inconsistent with John's appeal to point out that his Catholic sources remain Catholic. That misses the point.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kristen, I’m not sure if you grew up Catholic, but I did, and there was a story that was told about Pope Peter and the drum was beat with that story, on and on, about the permanency of the papacy. Vatican I talked of the papacy being “immediately given” by Jesus at Matt 16:18. There were to be “perpetual successors”. That means 2. Linus, 3. Clement, 4. Cletus or Anacletus, etc.

    That scenario can’t have happened historically. That is what has been established “without dispute”. This particular “Farfa” symposium is working to find some “theological” justification for why there is a “Petrine” ministry now that can somehow bring “unity”. Talk of “Pope St. Clement” is just completely off the table, because so many people agree that there was not a “bishop” in Rome at that time.

    Minnerath’s attributing this “development” to the Holy Spirit is the fall-back position. One reason this admission means so much is because of his status on the CDF symposium in 1989; he’s an insider, and he is confirming a story that so many Roman Catholic apologists have argued against for so long. They can’t say Minnerath is a “liberal”. They can’t dismiss what he says.

    The “historical facts” that are being discussed as “not in dispute” are precisely what amateur Roman Catholics have been “disputing” for a long time. Just establishing this set of facts (read Meier’s essay, if you can get to it) is incredibly important. All the members of the symposium are working with those facts; it’s the theological justification they’re trying to come up with.

    But the mere fact that all of this “history” has changed (that’s the point of putting up those articles here about Adrian Fortescue) is an incredible black eye for the hierarchy that claimed to have been established “immediately”.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Kristen, I’m not sure if you grew up Catholic, but I did, and there was a story that was told about Pope Peter and the drum was beat with that story, on and on, about the permanency of the papacy. Vatican I talked of the papacy being “immediately given” by Jesus at Matt 16:18. There were to be “perpetual successors”. That means 2. Linus, 3. Clement, 4. Cletus or Anacletus, etc.

    That scenario can’t have happened historically.


    John - call me when the Magesterium proclaims that the Papacy was not given by Jesus and it is not true that the church holds apostolic succession.

    Until then you are just dreaming a wild fantasy.

    I don't know such a scenario would make you so happy.

    Besides, I have yet to see you offer any actual extant evidence from the time period in question (AD 33 - Late 2nd Century) that proves that the papacy was born out of thin air in the 2nd century. The earliest witnesses that speak on this question affirm it! The scholars you are citing are making a familiar argument which is mostly built on what Clement 'does not say' or what Ignatius 'does not say.'

    Those are historical theories, John.

    The Church will never reverse sacred Tradition. You should know that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. call me when the Magesterium proclaims that the Papacy was not given by Jesus and it is not true that the church holds apostolic succession.

    The point is, they won't. That is why I say they are fundamentally dishonest.

    Until then you are just dreaming a wild fantasy.

    It is Roman Catholicism that is shown here to be "dreaming the wild fantasy."

    I don't know such a scenario would make you so happy.

    Again, historical facts are agreed upon, at a "high level," facts that typical Roman apologists look at and say to me, "you're crazy, you don't know what you're talking about".

    But what makes me happy is that, the foundational presuposition of the entire work is that, "the historical facts are such that they show there was no bishop in Rome until late in the second century."

    Besides, I have yet to see you offer any actual extant evidence from the time period in question (AD 33 - Late 2nd Century) that proves that the papacy was born out of thin air in the 2nd century. The earliest witnesses that speak on this question affirm it! The scholars you are citing are making a familiar argument which is mostly built on what Clement 'does not say' or what Ignatius 'does not say.'

    No, I'm not offering "actual evidence" at this point. Nor are the contributors to this book. What they are doing is agreeing that the evidence that is now on the table is overwhelming, and they agree now that this is the best representation of what that early period was like.

    Those are historical theories, John.

    No, according to the writers of this book, these are historical facts. That's why they feel they need to be coming up with new theological justifications for believing in a papacy. Notice they aren't calling it "the papacy" any more. They are relabeling it as a "petrine ministry".

    The Church will never reverse sacred Tradition. You should know that.

    This is why I say they are "fundamentally dishonest". Instead of admitting to the historical facts as they are, they are squirming for ways to justify 1600 years-worth of their own existence.

    When in reality, they should just admit, "oops, we made a mistake," and deal honestly with everyone. But you are right. They will never be able to admit that.

    ReplyDelete