Posted on

66. Towards a Politically Correct Apologetics?

October 3rd, 2013

Secular people and media are praising Pope Francis for being open to “dialogue” with the modern world in a way that is personally engaging and fresh in style. On his side, the Pope is taking more and more pleasure in entertaining editors, journalists and opinion makers with interviews, personal meetings, and direct phone calls. The last instance of such papal strategy for communication is a long interview that was published on 1st October by the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica with its former editor Eugenio Scalfari, an outspoken atheist. The interview follows an exchange of letters and a personal meeting between the two men.

What seems to emerge from all these pieces is a specific apologetic strategy by Francis. Here are three steps that form the apologetic backbone of what the Pope said in the course of the conversation and few biblical remarks about them.

First Step: Disparaging Proselytism to Avoid the Hard Question about Conversion

At the beginning of the conversation, Scalfari says:“My friends think you want to convert me” and here is how Francis replies: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas”.

As it is well known, proselytism is a “bad” word and has an even worse press. It is associated with fanaticism, unethical methods, and religious extremism. The Pope wants to reaffirm the negative understanding of it and in so doing he wants to build a bridge with his secular interlocutor who has a terrible opinion of it. Notice though that Scalfari had not asked his opinion on proselytism. He wanted to know if the Pope desired his conversion. Instead of answering, Francis speaks of proselytism knowing that Scalfari agrees with him. Is it ethical for a Christian not to give an answer about his conversion? Is not conversion a biblical word? Is not conversion the goal that should inspire all Christian mission? Moreover, Francis’ description of what it means for a Christian to engage in dialogue is a biblically flawed account. He speaks of “knowing, listening, expanding the circle of ideas”, but what about telling, witnessing, preaching, proclaiming the Good News? In Athens, the apostle Paul did the former but also the latter (Acts 17:16ff). Why does Francis affirm the former and omit the latter?

Second Step: Offering a “Lovely” Summary of the Gospel to Soften the Secular Prejudices

In the course of the conversation the Pope provides a summary of the gospel that suits the expectations of the secular intellectual. Here it is: “The Son of God became incarnate in the souls of men to instill the feeling of brotherhood. All are brothers and all children of God”. A little later he says: “Agape, the love of each one of us for the other, from the closest to the furthest, is in fact the only way that Jesus has given us to find the way of salvation and of the Beatitudes”.

Strangely enough, this language is very similar to the old liberal account of the gospel: a God of love wishing the brotherhood of all men. According to theological liberalism, this is the “essence” of Christianity. But, biblically speaking, it is not. In this summary there is no reference to justice, sin, judgment, atonement, death and resurrection, conversion, … not surprisingly words that are unpalatable to the secular mind. Is not the summary offered by the Pope at best a seriously truncated gospel, at worst another gospel? Is pleasing the dialogue partner and matching his expectations the primary task of apologetics?

Third Step: Reinforcing the Role of the Individual Conscience to Eschew Confrontation

At another point, Scalfari asks: “Is there is a single vision of the Good? And who decides what it is?” Here is Francis’ reply: “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good”. Scalfari: “You wrote that in your letter to me. The conscience is autonomous, you said, and everyone must obey his conscience. I think that’s one of the most courageous steps taken by a Pope”. Francis: “And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them”.

The Pope agrees that “the conscience is autonomous” and following its indications is one’s own task. No reference, however, to the lies that subjugate the conscience and to sin that mars it. No reference to the guilty conscience or the misguided one that needs the power of the Gospel to free it from bondage.

Later on, Scalfari asks: “Do you feel touched by grace?” Francis: “No one can know that. Grace is not part of consciousness, it is the amount of light in our souls, not knowledge nor reason. Even you, without knowing it, could be touched by grace”. Scalfari: “Without faith? A non-believer?” Francis: “Grace regards the soul”.

Is grace really an experience beyond knowledge, reason and even faith? Are all men, for their being men, already graced even without knowing it and without believing in the biblical God? To this question the Bible would say “no” (e.g. Ephesians 2:1-10).

The dialogue was politically correct and the outcome of the conversation was the following: the secular thinker is no longer nervous about his need to be converted. He is also confirmed in the idea that the gospel is about love and human brotherhood. He is also reinforced in his conviction that his conscience is what really matters. Unfortunately, the Pope seems to agree on all three points. Is this good apologetics?

Posted on

65. The Pope Francis’ dogma: “God is present in every person’s life”

September 20th, 2013

Previous Popes communicated on the printed page through encyclicals and official speeches only. One of the major changes that Pope Francis is introducing is that he is reversing the balance. He speaks more through newspapers. Last week, his reply to the editor of the Italian daily newspaper La Repubblica and his interview with different Jesuit journals demonstrated this trend and the interest is evident by the broadcast media coverage generated.

The more Pope Francis speaks, the more his theology is becoming clearer. He has always said that the traditional dogmas and the Catechism are in the background of what he affirms and that nothing of substance changes in his remarks on God’s infinite mercy and the goodness within every human being. This is true only in part. Different Roman Catholic interpreters have always played with the task of putting different accents on the same sheet music and Francis is deliberately putting his preferred accent – fortissimo – on an another key dogma. In light of his Marianism and mission-minded approach already elaborated, the last two written outputs and interviews have shed further light on his basic view of the relationship between nature and grace.

“A Dogmatic Certainty”

Talking to his fellow-Jesuit journalists from across the world (Sept 19th), Pope Francis said many things and these comments are attracting lots of positive reviews. Here we will focus on this particular one:

“I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else—God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow”.

This Pope is not someone who likes to use dogmatic language, at least on the surface. Yet, here he is using the strongest language possible. He really wants to mean what he is saying. God is in everyone’s life. This unqualified statement raises questions about what the Pope thinks of the nature of sin in human life and the reality of us “falling short” of God in our sin (e.g. Romans 3:23). While teaching that those who believe in Him shall be saved, the Bible is clear in saying that we are enemies of God because we are sinners and are therefore under his judgment. The Pope, instead, wants to affirm the dogma that God is present because there is always some residual “good” in man.

 

“Obeying One’s Conscience”

One further comment by Pope Francis reinforces his dogmatic view on man’s inherent openness to God’s presence. Responding to the editor of La Repubblica (Sept 11th), he writes the following:

“You ask me if the God of Christians forgives one who doesn’t believe and doesn’t seek the faith. Premise that – and it’s the fundamental thing – the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; the question for one who doesn’t believe in God lies in obeying one’s conscience. Sin, also for those who don’t have faith, exists when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen to and to obey it means, in fact, to decide in face of what is perceived as good or evil”.

Put simply: obeying one’s conscience is what God will take account of in granting forgiveness. Notice that the Pope here is not speaking of those who have never heard the gospel, but of those who don’t believe it knowing what they are doing. Apparently, to go against one’s conscience counts more than going against God’s revelation. Although the Bible teaches there is no excuse before God’s righteous judgment (e.g. Romans 2:1), Francis here says that that the conscience is the final judge to whom God will submit himself. The human conscience is the determinative factor for God’s forgiveness.

 

The “Grace-Within-Nature” Scheme

These two statements, i.e. God is in every person and obeying one’s conscience is what really matters, are thus part of a coherent “dogma” of human goodness and universal salvation.

What is important to observe is not so much the details of each statement, rather the general theological vision that lies at its core. Traditionally, Roman Catholicism has worked within the nature-grace scheme largely dependent on its pontifically ratified Thomistic tradition. According to this theological meta-narrative, nature, although partially flawed by sin, is elevated by grace to its supernatural end and the sacramental system of the Church is the way in which grace operates this elevation.

Moreover, in the XX century, this scheme was significantly modified and received an important endorsement at Vatican II. Whereas the old scheme implied that grace needed to be “added” to nature, the new version claims that grace is already part of nature and works within itself, not as something extrinsic but intrinsic to it. Grace is inherent to nature and through the sacramental system of the Church which unfolds itself more and more.

One advocate of a “grace-within-nature” framework was Karl Rahner (1904-1984), himself a Jesuit as well. His view of the “anonymous Christian” stated that each human being, for its being a human being, is already graced and therefore a Christian even though he is not aware of it or does not want to be such.

While not using the Rahnerian language, Pope Francis works within a similar “dogmatic” framework. God is present in everyone and one’s conscience is what will ultimately count. In spite of all its missional allure and merciful attitude, what Francis is saying is not good news for Gospel centered people.

Posted on

64. Between Trent and Aparecida. The Trajectory of Pope Francis

August 26th, 2013

Since his election Pope Francis has been impressing the public opinion with his extrovert attitudes, simple habits and charming language. The recent World Youth Day (WYD) in Brazil confirmed each of these attributes. Most people seem to admire the new “franciscan” style of the Papacy, i.e. a blend of frugal manners, emphasis on mercy, and apparent approachability. Few, however, have taken the time to deal with Francis’ theological vision that is inspiring his papacy.

The Tridentine Background …

An initial step to embarking on such a task is reading his first encyclical Lumen Fidei (July 5th, 2013), in which Francis (with Benedict XVI, who is the main drafter of the document), among other things, updates the theology of the Council of Trent. In this highly authoritative document he reiterates the doctrine of salvation by faith through sacraments and works, thus renewing the Catholic rejection of the Protestant Sola Fide, i.e. the good news that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. The attachment to Trent and the Counter-Reformation may seem remote if not alien to Francis (although we should never forget that he belongs to the Jesuit order), but the hard theological evidence says the contrary. In the foundational doctrine of salvation, Trent is still alive and well, perhaps in the friendlier tone of Pope Bergoglio, but it is there, untouched as ever. While the outlook of the Papacy is showing signs of change, the doctrinal core of the Church of Rome has been confirmed without significant developments.

… and The Vision of Aparecida

The WYD provided another important reference point that is at the heart of Francis’ program and therefore must be considered. From Trent, in the middle of the Italian Alps, we journey to Aparecida (Brazil), “on the other side of the world”, as Francis would put it. In 2007 the Latin American Bishops met in Aparecida for their Fifth General Conference, where the then Cardinal Bergoglio was one of the main inspirers of the final document. It is a 165 page text that aptly defines Francis in terms of his theological language, pastoral emphases, and missionary agenda. Aparecida accurately depicts the theological vision of the Pope. Because of its importance we shall look at it more carefully in a future Vatican File.

For Francis, though, Aparecida is not only a foundational document, it is first and foremost a Marian shrine which was built to keep a statue of Mary that according to tradition was found in 1717 by a group of three fishermen. Since 2011, it has become the greatest Marian pilgrimage destination in the world. During the WYD week, in his speech to the Brazilian Bishops on July 27th, Francis said that “Aparecida is the interpretative key for the Church’s mission”. There is something important to be found there; something that helps in understanding what the Church is all about in terms of its mission.

In explaining the intent of his comment, the Pope went on to say that “in Aparecida God offered Brazil his own mother” and revealed “his own DNA”. The Gospel, though, is about God giving His Son to the world, but Francis here speaks of God offering his mother. This not merely a matter of theological minutiae!

According to the Pope, the lesson of Aparedica has to do with the humility of the fishermen and their zeal to tell others about their discovery. This is the “interpretative key for the Church’s mission”: humility and mission. Notice, however, that we are talking about the recovery of a statue of Mary which has become a world-famous attraction for millions of people. The Gospel is about a group of humble fishermen being called by Jesus to follow him and to tell others about Him. Francis is here talking about people who found Mary and became missionaries for her. Again, this is no small difference!

Territorial Marianism

Aparecida is the national Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida, a Marian center which is very dear to Pope Bergoglio. Prior to WYD, in his speech there on July 24th, Francis said: “What joy I feel as I come to the house of the Mother of every Brazilian, the Shrine of our Lady of Aparecida! The day after my election as Bishop of Rome, I visited the Basilica of Saint Mary Major in Rome, in order to entrust my ministry as the Successor of Peter to Our Lady. Today I have come here to ask Mary our Mother for the success of World Youth Day and to place at her feet the life of the people of Latin America”.

Here we find some common threads of Francis’ Marianism:

–          the priority of his Marian devotion

–          his first act as Pope was a Marian act

–          his belief that the Papal office should be entrusted to Mary

–          his prayer to Mary for the success of WYD

–          his dedicating to Mary the people of Latin America.

This sentence summarizes the core of Francis’ Marianism. What is even more striking, though, is his “territorial” understanding of Aparecida. When he says that Mary is the Mother of “every Brazilian”, he is applying a “territorial” understanding of his religion, as if every Brazilian, in spite of religious pluralism that marks Brazil, is nonetheless a child of Mary. This attitude reflects how it is difficult for a Roman Catholic majority culture to accept the fact that Mary may be the mother of the Roman Catholic Brazilians, but not of those who may have a high respect for the biblical Mary without turning it into someone to be venerated.

When Pope Francis speaks extensively of “mission”, “outreach”, and “encounter with Christ” – a language that seems very Evangelical – one should be aware that the background of it all lies between Trent and Aparecida. He stands between the Counter-Reformation emphasis on a synergistic Gospel and the “missional” attitude that can be found in his thoroughgoing Marianism.

Posted on

63. Same Word, Different World. The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Regeneration

(this article appears on Credo Magazine, July 2013, pp. 63-71 and is used here with permission: www.credomag.com)

August 2nd, 2013 

The doctrine of regeneration belongs to the core of the biblical view of salvation and is a term that is shared by all Christian traditions in their respective accounts on what it means to be saved. To be regenerated by God is the act by which God himself re-creates life in a otherwise dead person. Regeneration is, therefore, the entry point of a saved life. Surveying the Biblical evidence, Packer summarizes it in this way: Regeneration “means rebirth (palingenesia): it speaks of a creative renovation wrought by the power of God”.[1] On the surface, the theological meaning of the word is pretty clear and all Christian traditions acknowledge it. The difference between them is not so much on the word itself but the theological “worlds” in which they implant the word in order to make sense of it.

A theological word is not a self-contained unit. Though it carries its own semantic weight, it is also defined by when and where it is found, the web of references which are associated with it, who is involved in enacting it as well as the practices that precede, accompany and follow it. In other words, regeneration as a word can have one meaning which is common to all, but regeneration as a doctrine may point to different theological directions depending on the way it is construed.

In what follows we will explore how Roman Catholicism understands the doctrine of regeneration especially as articulated by the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church.[2] This magisterial authoritative source is a thoughtful and comprehensive explanation of the Catholic faith and is the best place to come to terms with what the Roman Catholic Church believes about regeneration.

The Vocabulary of Regeneration

One way of pursuing our goal is to examine the vocabulary used by the Catechism as far as regeneration is concerned. There does not seem to be a specific and technical definition of the term, but the Catechism uses the word by associating it with other Biblical and liturgical words and expressions that contribute towards its definition. In doing so it approximately indicates the meaning of regeneration by way of connecting it to similar words.

As a life-giving event, regeneration is related to “new birth” or “re-birth” (e.g. 1213; 1270). Therefore the Catechism translates the Greek-derived word (re-generation) into the birth-related words. In another metaphorical area, regeneration is linked to the transition from darkness to light (e.g. 1250) and to the inner renewal of one’s own self and purification from sin (e.g. 1262). Moreover, regeneration is further associated with entering the kingdom of God (1263). There are Biblical references here and there to support each meaning.

What is most striking however is the relationship that the Catechism envisages between regeneration and the sacrament of baptism. More than its Biblical nuances and theological significance, it is this inherent association that ultimately defines the Roman Catholic understanding of the core of regeneration.

Sacramental Regeneration

As it is well known the Catechism is structured according to the order of the Apostles’ Creed (the profession of faith), followed by the presentation of the sacraments (the celebration of the Christian mystery), the Christian life including the ten commandments (life in Christ), and the life of prayer which is centered on the Lord’s prayer. In this overall framework, it is interesting to notice where regeneration is theologically placed and treated. It is not found in the section on the work of Christ nor in the section on the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but instead comes to the fore in the second part which deals with the sacraments of the Church. Doctrinally, then, regeneration, though organically related to the work of the Triune God, is specifically attached to the sacramental ministry of the Church. From a systematic point of view, the Roman Catholic theological map places regeneration under the rubric of the liturgy of the Church rather than in the chapter on God’s salvation.

More specifically, it is the sacrament of baptism that plays a fundamental role in bringing regeneration about. It is in the context of baptism that the Catholic doctrine of regeneration is spelt out.

 

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word” (1213).

The final quote comes from the 1566 Roman Catechism (II, 2, 5) which was published as a result of the Council of Trent. Notice however that no Scriptural reference is given to support the doctrine, but rather it appears as the combination of different Biblical words which are give a sacramental bent. Such an absence of Biblical support is telling. Indeed, there is no Biblical evidence to support such a weighty doctrinal statement. In the Catechism, baptism is seen as the sacrament which accords freedom from sin and re-birth as children of God. As regeneration is the result of baptism and baptism is administered by the Church, it is syllogistically evident that regeneration does not happen as an act of God’s grace alone, to be received by faith alone, but as an act mediated by the sacrament of the Church who enacts its intended result.

Expanding its teaching on baptism as that which effects regeneration, the Catechism goes on to say that

This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit (1215).

 

This time the language comes directly from Titus 3:5, but fails to indicate that the Biblical passage puts the “washing of regeneration” in the context of God’s goodness and loving kindness, stressing that we are not saved because of “works done by us” but out of “His own mercy”. The focus of the whole passage is God alone working out His loving plan of salvation without any contribution on man’s part nor on the church’s part – any work of any kind. In the Catechism, however, it is the sacrament that “signifies and actually brings about” regeneration. It is the act of baptism that causes the new birth to occur ex opere operato (from the work done). The emphasis has shifted from the merciful God who regenerates out of His sovereign grace to the baptizing Church who performs the sacrament of regeneration. In other words, a major shift has taken place: from the graceful act of divine salvation to the participation of the Church in the saving act, and from the free gift of God to the ecclesiastical sacrament ministered by the priest.

According to the Catechism, the time of regeneration is when baptism is administered. It is the baptized person that is regenerated and therefore enters the sacramental life of the Church in whose sacraments he/she will receive the fullness of salvation.[3] It is through baptism that the person is forgiven  from all sins (1263), made a new creature, adopted as a son of God, becomes a member of Christ, a co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit (1265). It is in baptism that the person receives “sanctifying grace, the grace of justification” (1266)[4] and is incorporated into the Church (1267-1270). It is baptism that is the sacramental bond of the unity of Christians (1271), therefore warranting the Roman Catholic view that Christian unity is based on baptism (even though the majority of the baptized ones do not show any sign of regeneration).

The “Sacramental Economy” and Evangelical Confusion

This view of baptismal regeneration is part of the Roman Catholic view of the sacraments. The Catechism defines this theological framework as the “sacramental economy” of the Christian faith (1076). If one reads what the Catechism says about regeneration without grasping what the “sacramental economy” means, one will completely misread it. To put it succinctly, the “sacramental economy” is a view that binds God to act through the sacraments and therefore through the Church.[5] Everything that God does, He does through the sacraments. His grace comes to us through the sacraments. His salvation reaches us through the sacraments. His work impacts us through the sacraments. The problem is not the recognition of the Biblical importance of the sacraments, but their exclusivity in terms of what God can do. In the background of the sacraments, there is always the Church that administers them, having therefore a fundamental role in mediating God’s actions. The word regeneration means new birth received from God, but the world of the “sacramental economy” makes it a Church affair because God is believed to bind Himself to work only through the sacraments of the Church. His grace is always a mediated grace through the Church.

This point is crucial even beyond the specific topic under consideration. When Evangelicals deals with Roman Catholic theology, they tend to overlook the “sacramental dimension” of the Roman Church. They analyze common words, common concerns, and common language in an atomistic way and may come to the conclusion that the old divisions are over because the language is similar.

For example, this is the case in the book Is the Reformation Over? by Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom.[6] In a useful chapter which highlights the contents of the  Catechism of the Catholic Church, the authors argue that “evangelicals can embrace at least two-thirds” of it (119), and that it stems from “common orthodoxy” based on the ancient Trinitarian and Christological creeds. Later, they admit that when the Catechism speaks of Christ, it interweaves Him to the Church to the point of making them one (147; 149), which is unacceptable for Evangelicals who consider the exaltation of a created reality an instance of idolatry.

So, on the one hand, there is an apparent “common orthodoxy” and on the other, there is a profound difference on the doctrines of Christ, the Church, salvation, etc. Therefore, here is the key question: how can Evangelicals accept “two-thirds” of the Catechism if this document speaks of the (Roman Catholic) Church whenever it speaks of Christ, the Spirit, the Trinity, and regeneration? Evangelicals find it difficult to discern the “sacramental economy” in the Roman Catholic teachings and the result is that they easily misinterpret them, limiting their analysis to surface matters, failing to grasp the whole. Yet, the sacramental economy keeps the system together and makes it coherent. If one fails to appreciate it, he misses the whole point of it.

In dealing with Roman Catholicism, especially in times of mounting ecumenical pressure, Evangelical theology should attempt to go beyond the single, detached statements and seek to get a grip on the internal framework of reference Roman Catholic theology uses. Roman Catholic theology is more than the sum of its words. It is rather a complex, yet coherent system based on the “sacramental economy” whereby God is bound to act through the sacraments of the Church.

The Dividing Line

Surveying the tenets of the Evangelical Faith, J.I. Packer and Tom Oden remind us that “Evangelicalism characteristically emphasizes the penal-substitutionary view of the cross and the radical reality of the Bible-taught, Spirit-wrought inward change, relational and directional, that makes a person a Christian (new birth, regeneration, conversion, faith, repentance, forgiveness, new creation, all in and through Jesus Christ)”.[7] Regeneration is this inward change wrought by the Spirit that brings life to those who were dead in their sins. For the Catechism, this is a defective definition in that it lacks the reference to the “sacramental economy” whereby the Church that administers the sacrament of baptism that brings about regeneration. The Roman Catholics in defining regeneration use the same words but put them in a different world, that of a “sacramental economy”, one that has precluded Sola gratia. So the difference between the Evangelical and the Roman Catholic understanding of regeneration does not lie in some exegetical detail or theological minutia. Instead, it centers on nothing less than how God works out his work of salvation.

 


[1] J.I. Packer, God’s Words. Studies in Key Biblical Themes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co., 1988) p. 149.

[2] Quotations will be taken by Catechism of the Catholic Church (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1994). The electronic text can be found at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM.

[3] This whole section of the Catechism echoes or quotes the Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 11.

[4] These terms here are confusing for a Protestant reader: “sanctifying grace” is defined as “the grace of justification”, therefore significantly blurring sanctification and justification. Ecumenical advocates tell us that the 1997 unofficial document “The Gift of Salvation” and the 1999 official Roman Catholic-Lutheran “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” reached a substantial agreement on sola fide. The reality is that the Catechism (which is far more authoritative than the just mentioned texts) keeps on confusing sanctification and justification, as the Council of Trent had done in the XVI century.

[5] In a more technical way, the Catechism speaks of the “sacramental economy” as “the communication of the fruits of Christ’s Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church’s sacramental liturgy” (1076). One would need another article to begin to unpack this dense sentence.

[6] M.A. Noll and C. Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005).

[7] James I. Packer – Thomas C. Oden, One Faith. The Evangelical Consensus (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004) p. 160.

Posted on

62. A Church with Two Popes

July 22nd, 2013

There was a time when the Roman Catholic Church had one Pope and an Anti-Pope, fighting against each other. There was even a time when three Popes contended for the office with each of them claiming to be the only true and lawful Pope. These difficult times occurred between the Middle Ages and the early Modern era. Since then, the Roman Catholic Church has always been sure to emphasize that it is the one and only Church, basing this on the fact that it is ultimately governed by one head, i.e. the Pope. The one and only Pope has always been thought of as being an inherent and necessary feature of the oneness and unity of the Church.

The resignation of Pope Benedict XVI in February 2013 has opened a new era. The election of Pope Francis a month later gave the Roman Catholic Church its new leader, but with the former one still living. Since May 2nd both Popes, the reigning one and the emeritus, have lived shoulder to shoulder in the Vatican state in the shadow of Michelangelo’s cupola. Tomorrow’s historians will perhaps consider these facts as watershed events in the historical and theological development of Catholicism. Some critical voices can be heard here and there in conservative circles that envisage the long-term significance of such an innovation. Canon law experts are adamant that the Church still has only one Pope. This is canonically true but it is not the whole truth. Here are some tentative reflections.

Retirement Scheme

The historical pattern of maintaining the unique institution of the Papacy has been to elect a new Pope once the old one had died. True, Canon Law provides for a Pope to retire, but this provision has never been applied in the modern era and was created only for exceptional cases of sudden and unrecoverable sickness. Benedict XVI, however, did not apply it in such an extraordinary circumstance, but instead as if it were an ordinary retirement provision for an aging Pope. Although old and frail, Ratzinger still enjoys relatively good health. He walks, speaks, writes, and is not severely handicapped to the point of not being able to be autonomous in moving around and taking care of himself.

More substantially, the papacy was considered as a life-long office, a “cross” to be carried for the rest of one’s life, its terms coinciding with election (the beginning) and death (the end). The second term is now under question and an addendum, i.e. resignation, has been implemented. A retirement scheme was introduced by Benedict, as if the Papacy were like any other elected role. The exceptionality of the Papacy is now less exceptional and more comparable with other offices. The Pope is less of a once-and-for-all “divinely appointed” figure and more of a pro-tempore (for a time), provisional officer of a religious institution.

Cohabitation

New issues have been raised by Benedict’s retirement. How should a retired Pope be addressed in terms of his titles? How should he dress? Where should he live? What public profile should he have, if any? Ratzinger chose to live in the Vatican and committed himself to keeping a low profile, not travelling, not speaking, and not appearing much. The lauded beginning of Francis’ papacy has now overshadowed the old course. The question remains, however. What if a retired Pope begins to be vocal? What if he intervenes in the affairs of the Church? What if he becomes the leader of a church party? This perhaps will be not the case with Benedict, but now that the door has been opened, who can predict all the possible outcomes for future retired Popes?

The first fruit of the cohabitation was the recent release of the encyclical Lumen Fidei (Light of Faith). It was signed by Francis as his first encyclical but is largely dependent on Benedict XVI’s work. Other measures will be somewhat co-authored. Benedict tried to introduce changes in the curial machine after financial, sexual and administrative scandals undermined the credibility of the institution. It is certain that he spoke about these issues with Francis, hoping that he would take action. Meanwhile, Benedict is in the heart of the Vatican, vigil and alert to what his successor is doing.

Why a Pope?  

Having two living Popes at the same time has the potential to raise further questions about the divine nature of the Papacy. Will it, for example, trigger a long-term revision of the institution? The Papacy started as a historical leadership structure modeled after the Roman imperial pattern. Popes began to function as religious emperors as the Roman ones began to fade away. It was subsequently given a dogmatic status to the point of defining it as a de iure divino (according to divine law) office. Vatican I (1870) divinized the papacy by making the pope “infallible” when he exercises his teaching role. Now, Ratzinger’s resignation “humanizes” it by showing that this office is like any other human responsibility, i.e. temporary and subject to human weakness. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church has a reigning Pope and a retired Pope living next to each other. Meanwhile, Pope Francis has inaugurated a style that seems to be light years away from the imperial pattern of the last 1500 years.

The ultimate question, however, is not the number of Popes, nor the contrast between a royal and a sober style. The hope is that all this will cause many Catholics to reflect on the nature of the Papacy beyond traditional dogmatic assertions and superficial apologetic arguments. Is it not the time to launch a radical re-thinking of the Papacy in light of Scripture?