- Oct 31, 2008
- 20,397
- 12,089
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
This is a really good article on OnePeterFive from Jose Ureta. This line in particular resonated with me because it's something I've struggled with as I've witnessed it, particularly with cradle Catholics, around me in my short time so far as a Catholic. (No offense to my cradle Catholic friends, it's not ubiquitous, just seems to run exclusively with cradle cats instead of converts in my observation)
(Emphasis mine)
https://onepeterfive.com/understanding-true-ultramontanism/
The oracle at Delphi bit is what resonated. I mean, maybe it's papolatry (papalotry?)... but there just seems to be this underlying belief that the Pope is incapable of being wrong, in word or deed, and this is hitched to a fear of critique.
Don't get me wrong, I fully uphold and affirm the Church's teaching on the Petrine Office, but I can't help but wonder if Eric Sammons' idea of "papal minarchism" or how the Eastern Catholics regard the papacy, is actually the correct and appropriately tempered understanding of Saint Peter's successor that we're supposed to have. Instead of this cult of personality that many of us Latin Rite Catholics seem to be stuck in.
I think I first noticed this with the way my (beloved) catechists gushed about John Paul II, and then even how some trads waxed nostalgic about Benedict XVI. And then--and this is more the clergy than the laity--as I watched the Church canonize John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, I just thought are we overdoing it?
What do you think? Have we overdone it? Is this some kind of weird overcorrection that in the absence of much of the tradition that has bound the Church together for 2,000 years we've somehow gone off track in our regard for the Papacy and elevated it too high?
I know, it sounds like protestant talk, and coming from a former protestant that's probably alarming. But it seems like we laymen ought to have a frank and sober conversation about what the Papacy is owed and what he isn't. What he can do, and what he can't.
To that last point there was a great debate between Timothy Flanders (EIC of OnePeterFive) and Timothy Gordon (Rules for Retrogrades) moderated by the director of the film Mass of the Ages on YouTube today wherein they debated whether the Pope has the authority to abrogate the 1962 Mass. It's worth checking out here.
I want to get your guys thoughts on this. Do you think it's possible to restore a healthy and properly balanced view of the Pope without rejecting the papacy? Because I don't think we should go too far in either direction either, if we did we'd either end up protestant or Orthodox and neither of those are viable options.
With OnePeterFive’s editorial team, I reject as false the idea that “the whole Catholic life must revolve around the pope who is, as it were, some kind of de facto oracle at Delphi, whose every whim becomes a binding law in the Church.” This notwithstanding, I believe it is dangerous to attribute this error to a “false spirit of Vatican I” and “extreme ultramontanism.” I can see how it is tempting to draw a simple parallel between the two councils insinuating that some people distorted their documents in the post-conciliar period.
(Emphasis mine)
https://onepeterfive.com/understanding-true-ultramontanism/
The oracle at Delphi bit is what resonated. I mean, maybe it's papolatry (papalotry?)... but there just seems to be this underlying belief that the Pope is incapable of being wrong, in word or deed, and this is hitched to a fear of critique.
Don't get me wrong, I fully uphold and affirm the Church's teaching on the Petrine Office, but I can't help but wonder if Eric Sammons' idea of "papal minarchism" or how the Eastern Catholics regard the papacy, is actually the correct and appropriately tempered understanding of Saint Peter's successor that we're supposed to have. Instead of this cult of personality that many of us Latin Rite Catholics seem to be stuck in.
I think I first noticed this with the way my (beloved) catechists gushed about John Paul II, and then even how some trads waxed nostalgic about Benedict XVI. And then--and this is more the clergy than the laity--as I watched the Church canonize John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II, I just thought are we overdoing it?
What do you think? Have we overdone it? Is this some kind of weird overcorrection that in the absence of much of the tradition that has bound the Church together for 2,000 years we've somehow gone off track in our regard for the Papacy and elevated it too high?
I know, it sounds like protestant talk, and coming from a former protestant that's probably alarming. But it seems like we laymen ought to have a frank and sober conversation about what the Papacy is owed and what he isn't. What he can do, and what he can't.
To that last point there was a great debate between Timothy Flanders (EIC of OnePeterFive) and Timothy Gordon (Rules for Retrogrades) moderated by the director of the film Mass of the Ages on YouTube today wherein they debated whether the Pope has the authority to abrogate the 1962 Mass. It's worth checking out here.
I want to get your guys thoughts on this. Do you think it's possible to restore a healthy and properly balanced view of the Pope without rejecting the papacy? Because I don't think we should go too far in either direction either, if we did we'd either end up protestant or Orthodox and neither of those are viable options.
