Posted on

102. Still “our Holy Mother the Hierarchical Church”

February 28th, 2015

A Church more interested in promoting mission than keeping traditions. A Church less concentrated on theological boundaries and more focused on expanding its loving appeal to all men. A Church whose unity is like a polyhedron and allows multiple relationships with her. This is the picture of the Church that Pope Francis has been presenting since his election in 2013. Overall the secular public opinion resonated well with this seemingly “lighter” form of Roman Catholicism, i.e. a more relaxed Church in terms of faith and morals living out its message in more organic and relational ways. In Francis’ preferred metaphor, the Church is a “field hospital” welcoming the irregular ones more than an impressive cathedral assembling the liturgically righteous. This is only one side of the coin, however. While it is true that Francis’ emphasis has been consistently put on the missional side of the Church, it is also true that he has occasionally but consistently re-stated the full, heavy and thick traditional understanding of the church.

Holy Mother

The last instance was during a recent catechesis on the topic of the Church[1]. In introducing the role of the Bishop, Francis said: “In the presence and ministry of the Bishops, of Presbyters and of Deacons we can recognize the true face of the Church: it is the Hierarchical Holy Mother Church”. Notice the reference to the “true face” of the Church, which is shown in the hierarchical structure of the Church thought of as the Mother. This is a very propositional statement about the Church. Two dimensions are particularly stressed: the hierarchical and the motherly aspects of the church, which form the backbone of its self-understanding.

According to Francis, as mother the Church “generates us in Baptism as Christians, making us reborn in Christ; she watches over our growth in the faith; she supports us between the Father’s arms, to receive His forgiveness, she prepares for us the Eucharistic table, where she nourishes us with the Word of God and the Body and Blood of Jesus; she invokes upon us God’s blessing and the strength of His Spirit, sustaining us throughout the course of our life and enveloping us with His tenderness and warmth, especially in the most difficult moments of trial, of suffering and of death”. This is a breathtaking list of verbs: generating, making reborn, watching over, supporting, nourishing, sustaining, enveloping … these are the maternal roles of the Church that always accompany the Christian life. Their cumulative force is overwhelming and makes them resemble the role of the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ. Actually this is what they are meant to be. Christ continues his mission through the Mother Church.

If one wants to come to terms with Roman Catholicism at all levels she needs to grapple with this deeply felt sense of motherhood, which is also the theological and devotional architecture of the Roman Catholic Mariology. It is Mary, the Mother par excellence, who embodies the motherly care of the Church and who is by no chance always invoked to ask for motherly protection and care.

The Hierarchical Church

The maternal principle of the Church lies at the heart of Francis’ vision of the Church. There is also an intertwined element to this. The motherly dimension is organically connected to the hierarchical structure of the Church. The Pope goes on to say that in the Bishop, the hierarchical top of the motherly Church, “is Christ Himself who renders Himself present and who continues to take care of His Church”. The presence of Jesus Christ is made present in the motherly role of the Church through its hierarchical structure. It is curious to notice that in his earthly ministry Jesus showed the Father, whereas now He carries on his mission in and through the motherly face of the Church. It is through the hierarchy that “the Church exercises her maternity”.

According to the Pope then, the “true face” of the Church is where the maternal and the hierarchical dimensions are intimately connected to one another and form the core of the church’s identity. In churches where the motherhood of the church is less explicit because it is defined by the sobriety of biblical boundaries and where the hierarchical structure is lived out against the background of the headship of Christ and the universal priesthood of all believers, the Church loses her “true face”. So, on the one hand, Francis is sending the message that Christian unity and human brotherhood are at hand in a loosely articulated vision of unity; on the other, he maintains the traditional understanding of the Roman Catholic Church which stemmed out of the Council of Trent.

At a superficial level Christian unity under Pope Francis may seem “easier” for non-Catholic Christians, but a closer look shows that the theological issues of the historic differences, at least with Evangelical Christianity, are still standing.

Posted on

101. Holy Mother of God! Three Times!

February 12th, 2015

In the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar the first day of the year marks the solemnity of Mary, the Mother of God. On this occasion the Pope delivers a Marian homily that highlights the unique status of Mary and her unparalleled role in Catholic doctrine and spirituality. Given the strong Marian devotion of Pope Francis it is no surprise that he celebrated this solemnity with great enthusiasm that also included an unexpected finale. A recent book (Francesco e Maria. L’amore di Papa Bergoglio per la Madonna, edited by V. Sansonetti, Milano: Rizzoli 2014) highlights the love of Pope Francis for the Madonna by collecting a number of Marian prayers and devotions which are extremely dear to him.

Inseparable Mother

In his first speech of the year Francis offered a meditation on the inseparability of Christ and his mother[1]. He then elaborated on that inseparability by underscoring the relationship between Mary and the church and ultimately between Mary and the whole of mankind. “Jesus cannot be understood without his Mother” said the Pope. This is true of course, but with certain limits and biblical distinctions. With the Incarnation the Son of God became a man by being born of Mary. He is the sinless God-man that brings forth the Father’s grace through the Spirit while his mother is a sinful creature that receives God’s grace. That inseparability needs biblical qualifications otherwise it can lead to the exaltation of Mary beyond what Scripture allows.

Having established the inseparability between Mother and Son, the Pope went on to apply it to another relationship: that of Mary and the Church. Here is what he said: “Likewise inseparable are Christ and the Church – because the Church and Mary are always together and this is precisely the mystery of womanhood in the ecclesial community – and the salvation accomplished by Jesus cannot be understood without appreciating the motherhood of the Church”. The train of thought is that Mary is inseparable from Christ and from the Church; therefore Christ is inseparable from the Church through Mary. Mary is the connecting point between Christ and the Church. As she is inseparable from the former, she is also inseparable from the latter and mediates the relationship between the two. Thus Mary is theologically central in the overall Roman Catholic scheme.

There is yet another step. As Mary is the mother of Jesus and the mother of the Church, she is also deemed to be the mother of all mankind. The Roman Catholic transitive property of the inseparable link is at work here. In lyrical style Francis concludes: “Mary, the first and most perfect disciple of Jesus, the first and most perfect believer, the model of the pilgrim Church, is the one who opens the way to the Church’s motherhood and constantly sustains her maternal mission to all mankind. She, the Mother of God, is also the Mother of the Church, and through the Church, the mother of all men and women, and of every people”. The human inseparability between Mary and Jesus is worked out in the inseparability between Mary and the Church and then between Mary and the whole of humankind.

A Crescendo With A Marian Grand Finale

Francis’ speech is a clear example of how Roman Catholic Mariology has been at work throughout the ages. An initial step with some biblical support (i.e. the Son-Mother link in the context of the Incarnation) was developed in subsequent syllogisms that lacked biblical criteria (e.g. Mary mother of the Church, Mary mother of mankind). The outcome is a brand new theological framework that has little resemblance to how it began.

As an experienced bishop with pastoral warmth, Francis ended his homily with an unusual request that is hardly common in Vatican celebrations. “Let us look to Mary, let us contemplate the Holy Mother of God. I suggest that you all greet her together, just like those courageous people of Ephesus, who cried out before their pastors when they entered Church: “Holy Mother of God!” What a beautiful greeting for our Mother. There is a story – I do not know if it is true – that some among those people had clubs in their hands, perhaps to make the Bishops understand what would happen if they did not have the courage to proclaim Mary “Mother of God”! I invite all of you, without clubs, to stand up and to greet her three times with this greeting of the early Church: “Holy Mother of God!”.

Reports say that the puzzled crowd that was sitting and standing in the Vatican basilica shouted “Holy Mother of God” three times as the Pope had instructed. Thus the first day of the year was an occasion to introduce a highly sophisticated Mariological doctrine and a strongly felt Mariological devotion which were blended together by a committed Marian Pope. For those who desire to live according to the Word of God, it was not a very promising start to the year.

Posted on

100. The Idols of Rome

January 31st, 2015

Idolatry has become a theme of renewed interest in recent theological discussion. It neatly describes what the Bible warns against, and it helps to make sense of the overarching narrative of the Christian message. Idols are the enemies of God and try to replace God as the ultimate source of human life. Here is how Tim Keller identifies the essence of an idol in Augustinian terms: “If you love anything more than God, even though you believe in God, if there is anything in your life that is more important to your significance or security than God, then that is an idol – a kind of pseudo-god, a false god, a covenant master”.[1]

Idols are counterfeit gods that infiltrate personal lives and divert them from searching for God and following Him. It would be utterly simplistic to think of idols only operating in individuals or groups of people. If the presence of idols is so pervasive in the whole of human life, certainly they have a place in cities. Actually, cities are spatial and cultural spaces for idols to shape and destroy what comes under their dominion. Idolatry is therefore an “interpretative key” to come to terms with the spiritual condition of the city. Here I offer my homework as far as the city of Rome is concerned. This is a tentative sketch of what the idols of Rome look like. They are in chronological order, going back to the ancient past of Rome down to its present-day outlook. The idols do not replace one another, but they build on each other.

Idol n. 1 PAX ROMANA (The Roman Peace)

From the second century BC until 476 AD, Rome dominated the ancient world. Its status quo was named pax romana, the Roman peace. Its goal was to have dominion over nations and to exercise political power. Through military conquest this “peace” was taken to the world. But it was hardly a real “peace” for anyone. It was actually based on the use of violence, the imposition of slavery and the oppression of dissenters. The Pax Romana is gone as a political system but its achievements in terms of architecture and ruins are famous throughout the world. Moreover, it influences the culture of the city by way of infusing a kind of spiritual arrogance and the illusion of being at the center of the world. The gospel brings another kind of peace: the shalom of God, the peace of God that gives dignity and reconciliation in Christ.

Idol n. 2 PAPAL CATHOLICA (The Religious Stronghold)

As the Rome Empire faded away, the city was run until 1870 by the Roman Catholic Church with its highest institution, i.e. the Pope. Popes considered themselves to be the true inheritors of the emperors. Of course, they also brought some Christian elements, thus practicing a kind of assimilation between pagan and gospel motives. The main ideology that drove the city was still “imperial” and political at its very heart. The city grew full of magnificent religious buildings, wanting to show greatness and power. As far as the spiritual influence of the Papal “catholica” is concerned, the church has been running people’s lives for centuries, exercising political and economic power. The gospel that Rome needs to hear and see is instead a message based on God’s word alone (sola Scriptura), centered on Christ alone (solus Christus), grounded on grace alone (sola gratia).

Idol n. 3 THE PALAZZO (The Palazzo)

After the unification of Italy (1861), Rome became the capital of the Italian nation (1870). Following the Roman Empire and the Catholic Church, now the state ruled the city, adding another layer to its spiritual outlook. Rome is a city where political structures are far from transparent, and its standards of governance are far from just. A general shrewdness of spirit marks public life. Rome is a city of political maneuvering where things can be settled if you are “in” the right circle. As the gospel alternative, the church needs to be the place where a culture of responsibility is promoted, in personal life, family, society, politics, etc.

Idol n. 4  LA DOLCE VITA (Sweet Life)

Finally, Rome is also famous for its “sweet life”, from the title of the movie by Federico Fellini La dolce vita (1960). Good food, easy life, a-moral pleasures, and sex without commitment – all contribute to the shape of the dream of a good life. Of course, there is much emptiness around and its promises are futile. Real life is different, yet the sweet life inspires people and nurtures their expectations. The gospel needs to match the aspiration of a good life, while denouncing the slippery slope of a life without Christ. After all, the Christian life means to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.

The church needs to be aware of these idols, as well as to embody viable gospel alternatives. The gospel not only denounces the bankruptcy of idolatry, but also fills life with real meaning, love and hope.

(This is an excerpt of my article “Identifying the Idols of the City” in Tim Keller, Center Church Europe. Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City, Franeker: Uitgeverij Van Wijnen, 2014, pp. 168-174. The book can be bought at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Center-church-Europe-balanced-gospel-centered/dp/9051944802)

[1] Timothy J. Keller, ‘Getting Out (Exodus 4)’, in: D.A. Carson (ed.), The Scriptures Testify About Me, Nottingham: IVP 2013, p. 41.

Posted on

99. The Fifteen Sicknesses of the Roman Curia Except One

January 14th, 2015

During the peak of the crisis that preceded the resignation of Benedict XVI in 2013 the Roman Curia was depicted as a “nest of crows”. This central governing body of the Catholic Church, made up of several departments and lead by high ranking officials (the majority being cardinals), had become a place of fierce personal conflicts and internal struggles. Benedict XVI gave up his pontificate also because he felt unable to find a solution to the chaos that was shedding a sinister light on the Vatican. Pope Francis was chosen “from the end of the world” in the hope that he would deal with the crisis of the Roman Curia as an outsider. Since being elected he has been sending clear signals about his uneasiness towards the Vatican establishment. The latest example of his criticism was his message to the Roman Curia just before Christmas (December 22, 2014) where he diagnosed a spiritually gangrenous reality.

An Impressive List of Plagues

The papal analysis of the spiritual condition of the Roman Curia is breathtaking in its denunciation. Here is the devastating list of sicknesses that he identified as he examined its members[1]:

1. The sickness of feeling oneself “immortal,” “immune” or in fact “indispensable”.

2. The sickness of “Martha-ism” (which stems from Martha), of excessive busyness.

3. The sickness of mental and spiritual “petrification”: namely a heart of stone and a “stiff-neck”.

4. The sickness of excessive planning and functionalism.

5. The sickness of bad coordination.

6. The sickness of spiritual Alzheimer’s disease.

7. The sickness of rivalry and vainglory.

8. The sickness of existential schizophrenia.

9. The sickness of gossip, of grumbling and of tittle-tattle.

10. The sickness of divinizing directors.

11. The sickness of indifference to others.

12. The sickness of the mournful face.

13. The sickness of accumulating.

14. The sickness of closed circles.

15. And the last one: the sickness of worldly profit, of exhibitionism.

What else can be added to this list? Whoever has ears, let them hear. More than a nest of crows the picture is more like a bunch of highly dysfunctional and egocentric clerics. This is the spiritual condition of the Roman Curia not according to a staunch anti-clerical observer but according to the head himself: the Pope!

The Missing Sickness

The honesty and courage of Pope Francis in this case is to be commended. The bitter irony of delivering the message on the occasion of the presentation of Christmas greetings when most would only say “nice” things is also noteworthy. One of the immediate follow-ups of the speech was that among the list of the fifteen new cardinals chosen by Francis only one of them belongs to the Curia whereas most of the others come “from the end of the world” like himself. Another interesting feature of these new cardinals is that some of them are outspokenly in favor of a more “pastoral” and open approach towards admitting to the Eucharist those in “irregular” relationships, as the Pope seems to be. This is another hot topic that the Pope is handling with increasing difficulty and that will be a test-case of the stability of his pontificate this year.

Back to the list of sicknesses. One consideration is worth mentioning. Historically the Roman Curia is a child of the Renaissance courts that surrounded the princes in their various tasks as absolute monarchs. The Pope as a Renaissance prince also had his dignitaries assigned to him and Popes even today continue to have them in the Vatican state. Throughout the centuries the Curia was given a theological status as if it were a small model of the Church itself; indeed the Church at its best on a small scale. The Curia is a product of a monarchial vision of the church and the role of the Pope as absolute monarch of a state is also part of the same breed. Pope Francis criticized the awful spirituality of the Curia, but did not go so far as to question its political and monarchial nature. While denouncing its wrong behaviors, he did not tackle the wrong theology behind it. One reason of his reticence is that the Roman Curia as a form of government goes hand in hand with the Papacy as a form of leadership. The two are inseparable. Questioning one means questioning the other and Francis is not prepared to do either.

This means that reforming the Curia entails much more than denouncing the poor spiritual conditions of its members or changing personnel in key positions. It involves a radical re-envisioning of the structures of the church according to the supreme apostolic teaching, i.e. the Bible, where the church has no court of dignitaries nor prince at its head, but Jesus Christ alone, who was crucified, rose again and is now exalted. At the beginning of his speech to the Curia, Francis quoted 1 Corinthians 12 where Paul speaks of the Church as one body with many members. This is the biblical blueprint of the Church whereby its most serious plagues can be healed and the dignity of the people of God can be restored.

Posted on

98. John Calvin and the Papacy

December 31st, 2014

This is an excerpt from my forthcoming book, A Christian’s Pocket Guide to the Papacy (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2015)

The Papacy has always had its critics throughout the centuries. It is fair to say, however, that it was the XVI century Protestant Reformation that developed the most comprehensive and massive argument against the Papacy pulling together Biblical, doctrinal, historical, moral, and institutional threads in order to do so. The Protestant critique reached its peak with the identification of the Pope as the Antichrist. According to the New Testament the Antichrist is someone who is against Christ and His church by wanting to take His place and destroy His work (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2). For Christians the Antichrist is the enemy par excellence. This equation stirred the religious emotions more than many subtle theological arguments. The Protestant Reformation was not the first movement that referred to the Pope as the Antichrist. There was a robust Medieval European tradition – from the Waldensians to Wycliffe, and down to the Hussites – that had denounced the Pope in such a radical way. This is why a recent Roman Catholic and Lutheran dialogue in the United States acknowledges this fact: “In calling the pope the ‘antichrist’ the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the ‘antichrist’ when they wished to castigate his abuse of power”.[1] Even in this case the Reformers were not necessarily innovative but relied on previous strands of thought well attested for in Church history. Here is how John Calvin argued his case against the Papacy.

The French Reformer John Calvin dealt with Roman Catholic representatives at various times and in different ways. [2] His major work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion (first edition: 1536) contains frequent interactions with Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. Here Calvin develops his argument that the Pope is the Antichrist (Institutes IV,7,25). The historical Pope that Calvin had in view was Paul III (1534-1549) but his critique never focuses on his person, but rather on the Papal institution. After underlining the fact that the Antichrist sets his tyranny in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ, Calvin writes that the Antichrist “abolishes not the name of either Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask” by robbing God of his honor. This is, for him, a clear picture of the Pope and therefore he concludes by saying that “it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom”. Calvin is not speaking of a particular historical Pope, but he is referring to the Pope as representing the institution of the Papacy.

An Antidote to the Papacy

Calvin’s main critical analysis of the Papacy is found in two works in particular. In 1543 the theological faculty of the Sorbonne published twenty-five articles that candidates had to subscribe to as a kind of oath to remain faithful to the Catholic Church. The following year, Calvin wrote a refutation of this summary of Catholic doctrine in his Articuli a facultate sacrae theologiae parisiensi by quoting each article and providing a critical review, i.e. an “antidote”.[3] Article XXIII treats the primacy of the See of Rome and rehearses Catholic proofs for it. In response, Calvin argues that while Scripture often speaks of Christ as the head of the Church, it never does so as far as the Pope is concerned.[4] The unity of the Church is based on one God, one faith and one baptism (Ephesians 4:4), but there is no mention of the necessity of the Pope in order for the Church to be the Church. Moreover, in listing the ministries and offices of the Church, Paul is silent about a present or future Papacy. Peter was Paul’s co-worker, not his pope-like leader. The universal Bishop of the Church is Christ alone. To this Biblical argument for the headship of Christ, Calvin adds a historical reference to some Patristic writings that support the same New Testament view. Even Cyprian of Carthage, who is often considered a Church Father who favored an early form of a Papacy, calls the bishop of Rome a “brother, fellow-Christian, and colleague in the episcopate”, thus showing that he did not have in view the kind of primacy that was later attributed to the Pope. These kinds of Biblical and patristic arguments against the Papacy can be found in another giant of the Protestant Reformation of the XVI century, namely Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), especially in his 1542 Trattato della vera chiesa e della necessità di viver in essa (Treatise of the true church and the necessity to live in her).[5] They appear to be standard controversial treatments of the magisterial Reformation.

What is Wrong with the Papacy?

Returning to Calvin, another of his works that deals with the Papacy was written in 1549. When Charles tried to find a compromise solution to the Augsbug Interim, Bucer and Bullinger urged Calvin to respond. He wrote the treatise Vera Christianae pacificationis et Ecclesiae reformandae ratio, in which he described the doctrines that should be upheld, including justification by faith. In expounding the doctrine of the Church, Calvin devotes a section to the Papacy. Here he criticizes the standard Catholic reading of John 21, a New Testament text that is considered to be one of the Biblical foundations of the Papal office. In commenting on the passage, Calvin notes that the threefold command to Peter to shepherd the sheep is to be related to the threefold denial of Jesus by Peter. This office is not exclusive given the fact that Peter exhorts his fellow-elders to do the same (1 Peter 5:2). Furthermore, according to Calvin the Papacy is totally invalid because in the New Testament there is no injunction given to Peter to find successors in a juridical sense. To keep the unity of the Church, Christ is all we need. Calvin then comments on the choice of Rome as the chosen See for the Pope. “Why Rome,” Calvin asks.  In writing to the Romans, Paul mentions many individual names, but Peter is not on the list. And even if Peter would later go to Rome, why was the city selected as the special and central place for future Popes? Why not Jerusalem? Or Antioch? Calvin, however, does not address the political and historical importance of Rome as reasons for locating the Papacy there.

Finally, Calvin once again accuses the Pope of being the Antichrist because of his “tyranny”, “destruction of the truth”, “corruption of the worship of God”, “breaking of His ordinances”, and the “dispersion of the order of His Church”. Here we see many similarities with Luther, with the exception that with Calvin the apocalyptic tone is not as strong and is less evident than that of the German reformer. Rather than passionate eschatological concerns, Calvin relies on lucid theological and Biblical arguments in his effort to grapple with the Papacy.

[1] “Differing Attitudes Towards Papal Primacy” (1973). The text can be accessed at http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm and is a useful summary of the main controversial issues around the Papacy between present-day Lutherans and Roman Catholics.

[2] On Calvin’s views of Rome as they are presented in various writings, see M. Stolk, Calvin and Rome in H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), The Calvin Handbook (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009) pp. 104-112.

[3] This word “antidote” would come back in Calvin’s refutations of the Acts of the Council of Trent. See his Acta synodi Tridentinae cum Antidoto (1547).

[4] See also Calvin’s Institutes IV,6-7.

[5] See my paper “Separazione e riforma della Chiesa ne ‘Il Trattato della vera Chiesa e della necessità di viver in essa’”, A. Oliveri and P. Bolognesi (edd.), Pietro Martire Vermigli (1499-1562). Umanista, Riformatore, Pastore (Rome: Herder, 2003) pp. 225-232.