Do you have any sources on how the first few popes were selected? Did Peter name his successor, knowing that he was going to die? Or were the early bishops of Rome chosen by public acclamation?
My favorite "pop history" of papal elections (favorite because it covers all 2000 years very quickly and because it is available to borrow on the Internet Archive), Frederic Baumgartner's *Behind Locked Doors*, reports that we know very, very little about the earliest succession:
> Numerous sources from the second century indicate how the Christian communities elected bishops, but very few refer to Rome. Evidence about the Roman community and its bishops is surprisingly sparse for the era before 250, considering the importance they have in church history. The earliest Roman sources, which date to about 400, propose that Peter appointed Linus as his successor and named Anacletus and Clement to follow in turn. The lack of information on early Christian Rome resulted in the creation during the early Midle Ages of myths about the authority of the early bishops in Rome, which were used to enhance papal power in later centuries. What hints there are suggest that in Rome there were several bishops at the same time or perhaps even no bishop until after 100. [James notes: I'm pretty skeptical of this sentence, never having detected any such hints myself.] The earliest official list of Roman bishops, the Liber Pontificalis, dating from about 354, is regarded as unreliable for the first two centuries of the Roman church. [James notes: eh, in the absence of contrary evidence, I tend to accept traditions, and they tend to be right more often than you'd expect, but it's a fair point that the 350s is pretty late.]
> Eusebius related a charming legend [again Baumgartner lays on the skepticism a little thick] about Fabian's election in 236. Fabian was not among the candidates whom the assembled brethren were considering, until [after thirteen days of deliberation] a white dove landed on his head [recalling the dove at the baptism of the Lord]. "Thereupon the people, as if impelled by one divine spirit, with one united and eager voice cried out that he was worthy, and immediately they set him on the episcopal seat."
This account is consistent with other early-century bishop elections, which frequently involved popular acclamation (perhaps most notoriously in the case of St. Ambrose of Milan, who was acclaimed bishop despite not having yet been baptized! of course they baptized him before ordaining and consecrating him.). It leads me to think that Rome very likely elected bishops the same way every other diocese in the Christian world elected bishops in the early centuries: in large, rather raucous assemblies of the Faithful, acting in concert with local clergy (and perhaps other lay officials) who formally held the power of election and with the consent of neighboring bishops who had the power to consecrate (and the authority to withhold consecration).
Much more on bishop appointments in the next installment, although it won't be answering the same question you asked.
I'm just here for the talk about 15th century conciliarism. (Okay, not quite true)
Haec Sancta or the opening councils were confirmed by several different popes. You mentioned the one Martin V quote, though people make a fuss over the word "concilialiter." He also has the bull inter cunctas, where he requires the hussites etc. to adhere to the council of constance, without specifying that he only means part of it. Basel definitely affirmed it, repeating it like four times. Arguably, Eugenius IV affirmed it in the bull Dudum Sacrum, but as he only says that his previously attempted dissolution was vain and of no effect, and that, "ipsum sacrum Generale Concilium Basileense pure, simpliciter et cum effectu ac omni devotione et favore prosequimur et prosequi intendimus", from half way through the council, some take that as less than a full approbation of what had happened to that point. But Ferrara (which then moved to Florence) treats itself as a continuation of Basel, as well. Eugenius' bull Moyses Vir treats Haec Sancta as a legit decree of the council (saying that Basel is just misinterpreting it). Pius II in his third retractation also affirms the council, explicitly in respect to what it says about the authority of councils, which can only be found in the 4th and 5th sessions. Both of these last ones would lend credence to the position that Haec Sancta is legit, but constrained in its application.
Anyway, there definitely seem to have been other councils convoked without papal approval. Vigilius actually forbade what became the 5th ecumenical council from meeting; that's awfully hard to construe as a convocation. He only eventually after accepted it, after they struck him from the diptychs and being imprisoned. I also think, but I would have to check, that Constantinople 1, like the one that we get the Nicene Creed from, was not originally accepted by Rome. It was presided over, at first, by Meletius, whom Rome was not in communion with at the time, and I think it only accepted it after 15 or 20 years had passed.
Anyway, uh, the rest of your article's interesting too.
I have no comment on Haec Sancta, as I am still working through the documents. I don't think Haec Sancta threatens the Church when read in light of (e.g.) Lumen Gentium (sounds like this aligns with your view of "legit but constrained"), so it's mostly an academic question for me, but holy cow is it ever a complicated one. It is, for example, at least not immediately obvious to me (a layman) that Martin V's demand that the Hussites adhere to the Council of Constance includes Haec Sancta, if the session where Haec Sancta was not, properly speaking, part of the Council of Constance (which, on the "mainstream" Catholic view, was not a council until at least its fourteenth session). But I haven't actually *read* Inter Cunctas yet, just commentaries on it, so it would be a mistake for me to run my mouth about it, and I mention this only to illustrate how unsettled my own mind is at the moment.
> Anyway, there definitely seem to have been other councils convoked without papal approval. Vigilius actually forbade what became the 5th ecumenical council from meeting; that's awfully hard to construe as a convocation.
Well, this is complicated, because Vigilius *did* formally convoke the council in cooperation with the Emperor in 550, then, outraged, tried to withdraw it in 551 after Justinian tried to screw him on the number of bishops present, but never actually issued any formal withdrawal. So if you just look at the public documents, what we find is that Pope Vigilius, in cooperation with the emperor, convoked the council, and that's the end of official statements on the matter.
Vigilius later appears to have accepted the presidency of the council anyway (going by the January letters Patriarch Eutychius read out during the first session in May). Then, when the council actually opened, he refused show up, unconvincingly pleading illness. Meanwhile, the council repeatedly offered him the presidency (which is his by right) and mourns his supposed inability to be present (when everyone knows he's not there as a protest).
So, yes, there's this whole background political game being played, but, *formally speaking*, Constantinople II appears to have been convoked by the pope, the presidency duly offered to the pope, and its acts subsequently confirmed by the pope.
All I know about Constantinople I's convocation is what Bellarmine writes in his On Councils:
"Theodoret relates about the first Council of Constantinople that Theodosius did not summon it as much as he sent the letters of Pope Damasus, whereby he summoned the Bishops to the Council. In this way the Bishops gathered in that Council wrote to Pope Damasus (cited by Theodored hist. lib. 5 ca. 9): 'At your reverence's command in the letters sent to the most holy emperor Theodosius in the previous year, we were prepared to make the journey to Constantinople.' Therefore, although Theodosius had summoned the Council, nevertheless, he did so at the command of Apostolic letters. This is why in the sixth Council, act. 18, the Fathers say Theodosius and Damasus opposed Macedonius by means of the second Council, just as it was said a little earlier, that Constantine and Sylvester gathered the first Council to resist Arius." (Chapter XIII: Arguments are Answered)
And later, in his discussion of the presidency:
"The second general Council was the first Council of Constantinople, in which it is certain the Emperor did not preside, but only sent the letters of the Roman pontiff to Bishops, whereby they were called to the Council [citation omitted]. It is also certain that the Roman Pontiff did not preside, rather, Nectarius, the Bishop of Constantinople. The reason for this is because the Roman Pontiff was not present, either himself or through legates. For Pope Damasus called together the Bishops of the East at Constantinople, but later wanted them to come to Rome from there, where he would summon a Council of western Bishops, so that the fullest Council would take place at Rome. The Remainder of the eastern bishops excused themselves on account of just causes, and joined their mind and teachings with the western Bishops, but not their physical presence. [citation omitted because my fingers are tired of typing this out of the book] Moreover, what if Damasus were present? Without a doubt he would have presided, as is clear from the same epistles, where they acknowledge Damasus as their head, and he calls them sons." (Chapter XIX: Who Presides at a General Council?)
Granted, St. Bellarmine is hundreds of years out-of-date from contemporary historical sources, so, for all I know, he's missing a lot. And he was writing with a definite point of view, which may well have biased him. Still, that's what I know about Constantinople I's legitimacy.
There's often been dispute over some of the disciplinary canons of Constantinople I, and I don't think you're wrote that some of that dispute broke out right away, but, to my awareness, Constantinople I was convened with Rome's consent and its doctrinal decisions (Canon 1 and the Creed) were confirmed by Rome more or less immediately (with the caveat that nothing was "immediate" in the ancient world due to slow communication).
I think I agree that Inter Cunctas doesn't entail that. It's just, a general endorsement, without qualification, by someone who was a part of the Pisan party would incline towards it being an endorsement of the whole.
Regarding the other two councils, fair, I wasn't aware of those complications. Bellarmine's more detailed, I guess, than what I knew up to this point.
But checking back, I just saw, "a general council may be convoked and presided over solely by a valid pope!"
There were many councils that were neither convoked by, nor presided over, by the pope. In fact, my impression was that that was the case for all of the first seven ecumenical councils, which were generally convoked by the emperor, and presided over by non-pope bishops.
I'll start by sketching Bellarmine's view, because Bellarmine's view of conciliar or papal authority is, in most cases, the default mainstream Catholic view today.
Bellarmine argues (at considerable length, with citations for each) that each of the first seven ecumenical councils were convoked at the advice and with the consent of the pope, with the emperor functioning as a mere "summoner" or facilitator (because it would be very hard to gather hundreds of people *without* imperial support, and because councils were expensive, and the money came out of the imperial treasury).
On the one hand, Bellarmine doesn't believe that it is strictly necessary for validity for the council to be commanded by the pope. He thinks that mere papal consent to an imperial convocation counts (although imperfect). He writes: "A general Catholic Council summoned by the Emperor alone is null, i.e. without the consent and authority of the Roman pontiff, and I shall briefly show this from each of them one by one."
On the other hand, he defends the position (with a blizzard of citations I have not pursued) that all of the first seven councils were in fact convoked by the pope through the emperor, not by the emperor with the pope's mere consent. (Again, a grain of salt about these claims, since I'm sure the field of history has learned one or two things in the past four hundred years.) (Also, Bellarmine is obviously speaking about formal acts, because he knew as well as you and I do that the political realities surrounding, e.g., Vigilius and Constantinople II were a lot more complicated.)
As for the presidency: Bellarmine's position is that the pope is entitled to the presidency of any valid ecumenical council, but it is not necessary for validity for him to actually preside. He may preside personally, send legates to preside in his stead, or allow another president altogether, so long as the council operates with his consent (formal consent sufficing if more deep-seated support is lacking) and at least presumptively recognizes the pope's authority to preside. He then argues that each of the councils comports with this view, and is rather harsh to some of the claims of Calvin and the Centuriators on the other side. For example, on Chalcedon: "This history, which Calvin recites without any proof, is full of lies... [Calvin tells] the most impudent lie, since nothing of the sort is related by anyone, nay more, we see that Leo absolutely sent legates to preside, and sought consent from no one, still less by favor or permission."
So Bellarmine's view is that, for ecumenical validity, a council must be convoked by papal consent (and that in actual fact they were all convoked by papal *command*), must be open to presidency by the pope or his legates, and most be confirmed by the pope.
Lumen Gentium, the modern Catholic synthesis on the authority of bishops, takes a somewhat gentler view: "A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them." This makes papal convocation and presidency a mere prerogative, while only papal acceptance is required for validity. Nevertheless, it remains the mainstream view that recognition of the papal prerogatives is, at least, pretty important, so a council convoked outside papal authority, without his consent, and without him being offered the presidency (or at least presumed to have a right to the presidency) is at least *presumptively* invalid.
This is all, of course, a *great* deal more nuanced than I presented it in that brief parenthetical in the main body of the article. By any Catholic standard, Pisa had no authority to do what it purported to do, but I admit to giving it short shrift!
Interesting. Well, I suppose the place to proceed next on this topic (well, aside from me actually needing to read Bellarmine) would be to dig up some Gallicans or Protestants responding to Bellarmine on this topic and see what they say.
P.S. I say all of this merely to detail the Catholic view. It is not an attempt to persuade you that the Catholic view is correct, and I recognize that I have offered no evidence that it is.
(A key problem with the common Catholic view of conciliar and papal infallibility, in my opinion, is that it is often defended or advanced *before* it is actually defined!)
On the one hand, I agree it does seem fitting for the other Patriarchs to be the ones to declare a claimant Pope invalid. On the other hand, the Eastern Catholic Churches put together are <2% the size of the Latin Church; even if the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole reunified it'd still be 20% the size! That makes me want to look farther.
On the gripping hand, perhaps the answer is that the Pope should take another leaf from the Eastern Churches (and Anglicans) and split off parts of the Latin Church into new autocephalous Churches of their own?
I don't think Christian unity allows for "completely authcephalous" churches like in the East. (Nice Pournelle reference BTW). Otherwise, I agree with the eastern patriarchs having a role.
Myself, as a Protestant, I'm fine with autocephality (though please not along national borders, which smacks far too much of phyletism; I indict many Protestant churches here along with many of the Easterners).
But in contemplating a design for the Roman Catholic Church, I was meaning the same sort of autonomy you already give the Eastern Catholic Churches; is there a more precise word for it?
We use the term "sui iuris." Or, at least that's the term I always hear.
The precise difference between an autocephalous church and a sui iuris church is, I confess, beyond my knowledge -- but I think I both understand what you mean (and basically agree with it) and understand why Phil raised an objection to the terminology.
The Eastern rite Catholic Churches although largely self-governing are still subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome (who once bore the title Patriarch of the West). The Eastern Orthodox autocephalous churches are completely independent. This is why there is an impending split between the Patriarch of Constantinople and most of the Eastern churches, including the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the Russian patriarch, which doesn’t recognize the independence of the Ukranian Orthodox Church.
Visible unity in Christ is more prized among Catholics and Orthodox than among Protestants, who are endlessly split because there is no way to resolve doctrinal disputes.
Bringing in a comment I made elsewhere about this:
Forget PoliSci folks, what governments around the world need in charge are CompSci guys, for at least a term's worth or two. Not to pass any new legislation, but to refactor and codify everything that's already there, and to install meaningful version control for the Code of Law
“For example, the United States has three constitutional amendments and extensive statutory provisions ironing out the finer details of presidential succession, plus the uncodified institution of the “designated survivor,” just in case. Most of us don’t know the implementation details, but we all know that this system exists, that there is always a single clear answer to the question, “Who is the President of the United States?””
Actually, there is not always a single clear answer from what I can determine. We have the order of succession, certainly, and then… nothing. They have the designated survivor protocol to guard against it, but what if something happens that wipes out everyone anyway? No Constitutional amendment or law, as far as I can tell, gives any response. If everyone in line of succession died, it looks to me like we'd just be without a President until the next election.
It is not impossible to govern without a President. In some ways it might make things easier; it'd basically implement your idea of ditching the veto, so Congress could actually pass legislation more easily, but it'd also mean you couldn't actually appoint anyone until you got a new President.
More plausibly I expect an event like this would cause even the dysfunctional Congress to come up with an Amendment specifying what would happen in such a situation, and get the states to ratify it quickly. Still, it does seem like right now we wouldn't necessarily always have a single clear answer to the question of who is President (well, I suppose "there is no President" is a clear answer).
EDIT: Evan Þ in a response has answered the above portion of my post. But I'll keep it above for reference so people know what he is responding to.
"As pope, one of my first acts would be to fix this. The papal electoral body would have designated survivors. Specific legislation would address the situation where all the electors are wiped out."
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. I think from a Catholic standpoint the argument that God just wouldn't allow it to happen makes the most sense (as a counterargument you mention the Western Schism as something God allowed, but an instance where there is a pope but it's confusing to figure out who is a massive difference from a situation where there is no way to have a conclave), but nevertheless setting up a contingency plan is still a good idea. Unlike the Presidential issue discussed above, bishops can't just pass a new amendment.
"One more example, a fictional one: suppose the conclave elected a pope who later turned out to be a woman. I’m not talking about an apparent man with an XX intersex condition like Cardinal Benitez in Conclave. I’m talking a full-blown Pope Joan situation. The conclave elects a perfectly healthy, anatomically normal woman (thinking she is a man), and the way the world finds out is when, eight months after the election, she secretly gives birth to a son—and the tabloids get pictures! In Catholicism, only a male can be ordained a cleric, including bishop of Rome. (Jesus did not give the Church express authority to ordain anyone else.11) Therefore, Antipope Joan’s papacy would be utterly null and void, and this would be manifestly clear to the entire Catholic world."
I disagree on this. Under the paradigm you describe, it seems we would have fulfilled the requirement of universal peaceful acceptance of a pope. That means they're the pope. One place that explains this well is https://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html. This doctrine has long been a thorn in the side of sedevacantists, which is why they either have to deny it as doctrine or misrepresent it (e.g. I saw one guy claim that John XXIII long being included in the line of popes, but later removed, showed it wasn't the case--but the "peaceful" acceptance was only well after his "papacy", not during it).
Therefore, trying to set up any kind of tribunal to "judge" this issue after the fact is pointless, as the issue was already judged. So if the situation you describe occurs, it seems the answer is simply that Roman Catholicism has shown itself to be false, and to go find another denomination and move on, like what you describe in your hypothetical in footnote #15. Setting up a tribunal to try officiate a contested election (where there ISN'T universal peaceful acceptance) might be worth doing, though. It hasn't happened in centuries but I suppose it's always something that could theoretically happen.
"Update for readers who don’t care about the Catholic stuff: I spent most of today (June 9) working on the next installment of Some Constitutional Amendments, this time finally dealing with the Senate. Whereas I have proposed making the House raucously democratic, my recommendation will be to take the Senate in the opposite direction."
This could be interesting. Given what you have said in previous posts, I am sure whatever idea you have takes into account one of the largest issues with simply going back to the way Senators were previously chosen: The fact it'd just turn all the state legislature races into Senate races in the same way that while you technically vote for electors for President, functionally speaking everyone just votes for their preferred presidential candidate. While problematic for the President, at least here you have the electors only casting their vote for President and Vice President, whereas a return to the old way of electing Senators would be as if you had modern presidential elections except instead of just casting their vote and going home, the electors stuck around and voted on bills.
Personally, the change I want most for the Senate would be to, instead of having Senators of 6-year terms where 1/3 is changed every two years, all Senators are elected for 4-year terms and 1/2 of the Senate is changed every two years. Part of this, I admit, is I simply find it more convenient to have every state have a Senate election every two years rather than the more confusing schedule we have now where some do but others do not, but I also dislike the 6-year term for being a bit long anyway, allowing Senators to have the voters forget about things at the start of their term by the time they run for re-election. Such a change in my mind would still keep the Senate more stable than the house (only half of it is up for election every two years).
If something wipes out everyone in the line of succession to the US Presidency, there're two clear answers.
Per the Presidential Succession Act, Congress convenes to elect a new Speaker of the House or President pro tem of the Senate, who immediately becomes President. If Congress is all dead too, then some governor can instantly appoint two interim Senators. They can meet as the Senate, scrupulously avoid remarking on the lack of a quorum, and choose one of themselves as President pro tem of the Senate who immediately becomes President.
Congress could if it wanted amend the Presidential Succession Act to give a longer list, but I'm fine with this Congressional bootstrapping protocol as a last resort.
Ah, okay. I missed that when I was looking up information. (in retrospect, it is a bit obvious that they could just make a new Speaker of the House and then they become President)
Sorry; it took me a while to read the post on "universal and peaceful acceptance." (Had to get the Senate Part II draft into the "polishing" phase before I could really come up for air.)
I am fond of this doctrine, and I have (obviously) found it useful in discussions with sedes. There are very good reasons for believing that the universal and peaceful acceptance of a pope means he's the pope. Beyond that, here are a number of good reasons for believing that universal and peaceful acceptance makes the identity of the pope into an infallible dogmatic fact. I did *not* realize how many august authorities had weighed in on this doctrine in its favor, and it was pleasing to read them. I love the Benedict-specific Q&A
Still, the doctrine has never been formally defined by a council or pope (Inter Cunctas counts as a papal endorsement but not, I think, a formal definition), so it inhabits a strange middle space: it is sententia communis (and therefore one can validly dissent from the belief) that the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope establishes his validity de fide (and therefore one *cannot* validly dissent from the belief). Also, because it has never been formally defined, there remain some gray areas around the edges (like, what *exactly* counts as "universal"?). Overall, the teaching is not *so* well-established in Catholic thought that I would personally think the Catholic Church had been disproved if it were contradicted; I would instead conclude that the sententia communis had been mistaken, as it rarely but occasionally is.
However, I can understand why someone more convinced of the doctrine might think otherwise, and might leave the Church over it. I can *also* understand why someone a little more convinced of the doctrine would therefore find it counterproductive to have a "validity tribunal" like I suggested in the article, when simply teaching ex cathedra that universal and peaceful acceptance == validity.
James, regarding footnote 15, and trying to understand the fullness of the argument. Why convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and not full-blown embrace atheism? i.e. why the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Catholic Church and not the whole of Christianity? Real question that I asked myself, discussed with my calvinist girlfriend and couldn’t figure out an answer. Best Regards!
Here is how I see it. I suppose one may certainly see it in several different ways! But this is the view I am slowly (slowwwwwwwwly) building up for my kids in my Letters to a Growing Catholic series.
I have effectively absolute certainty (or the closest thing that passes for it in this life) that there is an immaterial, eternal First Cause, because logic clearly requires this.
I retain a small amount of doubt because I make mistakes sometimes, even about obvious things, but not very much doubt. (e.g. I am a perfectly normal heliocentrist who thinks flat-earthers are largely crazy, but I have more doubt about heliocentrism than theism.)
I have moral certainty (which is a bit less than absolute certainty) that this First Cause has the nature of a person, or something rather like a person, because this seems to follow from further logic. But it's a little further down the logic tree, and the arguments are a little more complicated, so the chances that I made a mistake are a bit higher.
It is impossible to have as much confidence in the claims of history than in the claims of logic. The truths of history simply can't be known in that way, and are always subject to possible revision. I have the very highest historical confidence that Jesus of Nazereth lived and preached. This is still less than my confidence in, say, the Pythagorean theorem, but about the same amount of confidence I have in, say, common accounts of the Battle of Chancellorsville.
Then there's this claim that Jesus rose from the dead, and the related claim that this proves Jesus was God. These claims are both dependent on prior claims. That is, I could deny Jesus's resurrection without denying His existence, but I could not coherently deny Jesus's existence while affirming His resurrection. Since these claims depend on those earlier claims, these claims are less certain than those claims.
Then we start to get into the really tricky claims: claims about the specific reliability of each and every passage of the Gospel; claims about the correct *interpretation* of each and every passage of the Gospel; claims about whether there is *legitimate authority* that can pronounce definitively on those interpretations; claims about *which* putative authority that might be. I follow a chain of historical, logical, and Scriptural evidence that leads me to conclude that the Catholic Church headed by the Pope has the authority from Christ to pronounce definitively on Scriptural interpretation. However, each claim in that chain is built on all the prior claims, and therefore less certain than them. My confidence in the claim that Catholicism is true is therefore *necessarily* much lower than my confidence that Christianity is true, and that, in turn, quite a bit lower than my confidence that Jesus really existed, which still doesn't approach my confidence that God exists.
Many of these claims are also much more hotly contested -- and much more *plausibly* contested. Orthodox and Protestant claims about the ecclesiology of the first millennium make a lot more sense than Richard Dawkins' atheism, and are often harder to refute. The Catholic interpretation of Matt 16:18-19 is, I believe, the best interpretation, but there are other interpretations. Ask an Orthodox apologist and he'll talk your ear off about them. Even Protestant leaflet-droppers usually have some training in responding to Matt 16:18-19 and Catholic claims about the structure and nature of the Church!
I'm pretty confident Jesus rose from the dead. I'd stake my life on it, and I suppose I have done so. But if you built a time machine, went back to 33 A.D., filmed the crucifixion, and showed me video proof that the Sons of Thunder took His body down from the Cross and buried it in a potter's field where it was unearthed and eaten by wolves, I would have to update my belief in the Resurrection to "nope." Losing belief in the Resurrection would also necessarily mean losing my belief in Jesus's divinity and all claims downstream of that: the reliability of the Gospel, the interpretation of said Gospel, and all the rest. I would *also* have to update a number of other beliefs about the correct interpretation of historical evidence, which had led me to my now-demonstrably false conclusion. This would be very painful and would obviously constitute a major crisis in my life.
However, losing the Resurrection would have no effect on any *upstream* beliefs. Theism is still clearly correct, whether or not Christianity specifically is true or not. Christianity is dependent upon theism, but theism is in no way dependent upon Christianity. I'd still be a theist.
Likewise, I'm fairly confident Catholicism is right. However, if the Pope taught clear error, that would force me to update my beliefs about the Catholic interpretation of Matt 16:18-19, as well as all other beliefs downstream of my belief in the authority of the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture. I would have to reorient my whole way of thinking about Scripture to deal with the discovery that I'd been doing it wrong, and this would be a crisis for me.
However, there's no good reason for this crisis to threaten my upstream beliefs. The papacy's failure would not necessarily prove that the gates of hell had prevailed against the church founded by Christ. It seems far more likely that it would prove I had misinterpreted what Christ meant by "His Church" and/or "the gates of Hell" and/or "prevail against"... which is exactly what several million Orthos and Prots have been shouting at me for centuries! The papacy's failure would cast no doubt on the good independent evidence we have for the Resurrection, much less theism, so would not diminish my belief in either one.
Where does a man go if he believes in theism, Christ and the Resurrection, the Scriptures, and the Trinity, but also believes Catholic teachings about the teaching authority of the papacy are flat-out wrong? Orthodoxy always seemed the most natural answer to that question to me. I know that some people think Protestantism makes more sense (especially Protestants themselves!). Thus footnote 15.
Where I think some people might not be able to follow me on this is that I think some people believe in Christ's Resurrection *because* they believe in the authority of the pope. Sometimes this takes the form of a circular argument: one believes in the pope because of the Resurrection and the Resurrection because of the pope. (Protestants do the same thing sometimes, but with "Scripture" instead of "the pope.") Other times, it's not circular, but is instead an entire faith based on, for example, Belloc's line about how a Church this messed-up must be true. When one's belief in the Resurrection is in fact "downstream" of one's belief in the papacy, then, yes, losing faith in the papacy means losing the whole Christian kaboodle. However, I think that's a very brittle form of Catholicism anyway, vulnerable to attack from many angles even without the papacy failing, and it's not (in my opinion) the way the Catholicism itself teaches us to be Catholic.
(I have said a prayer for you, your girlfriend, and her conversion to the fullness of Christian truth!)
Do you have any sources on how the first few popes were selected? Did Peter name his successor, knowing that he was going to die? Or were the early bishops of Rome chosen by public acclamation?
My favorite "pop history" of papal elections (favorite because it covers all 2000 years very quickly and because it is available to borrow on the Internet Archive), Frederic Baumgartner's *Behind Locked Doors*, reports that we know very, very little about the earliest succession:
> Numerous sources from the second century indicate how the Christian communities elected bishops, but very few refer to Rome. Evidence about the Roman community and its bishops is surprisingly sparse for the era before 250, considering the importance they have in church history. The earliest Roman sources, which date to about 400, propose that Peter appointed Linus as his successor and named Anacletus and Clement to follow in turn. The lack of information on early Christian Rome resulted in the creation during the early Midle Ages of myths about the authority of the early bishops in Rome, which were used to enhance papal power in later centuries. What hints there are suggest that in Rome there were several bishops at the same time or perhaps even no bishop until after 100. [James notes: I'm pretty skeptical of this sentence, never having detected any such hints myself.] The earliest official list of Roman bishops, the Liber Pontificalis, dating from about 354, is regarded as unreliable for the first two centuries of the Roman church. [James notes: eh, in the absence of contrary evidence, I tend to accept traditions, and they tend to be right more often than you'd expect, but it's a fair point that the 350s is pretty late.]
> Eusebius related a charming legend [again Baumgartner lays on the skepticism a little thick] about Fabian's election in 236. Fabian was not among the candidates whom the assembled brethren were considering, until [after thirteen days of deliberation] a white dove landed on his head [recalling the dove at the baptism of the Lord]. "Thereupon the people, as if impelled by one divine spirit, with one united and eager voice cried out that he was worthy, and immediately they set him on the episcopal seat."
This account is consistent with other early-century bishop elections, which frequently involved popular acclamation (perhaps most notoriously in the case of St. Ambrose of Milan, who was acclaimed bishop despite not having yet been baptized! of course they baptized him before ordaining and consecrating him.). It leads me to think that Rome very likely elected bishops the same way every other diocese in the Christian world elected bishops in the early centuries: in large, rather raucous assemblies of the Faithful, acting in concert with local clergy (and perhaps other lay officials) who formally held the power of election and with the consent of neighboring bishops who had the power to consecrate (and the authority to withhold consecration).
Much more on bishop appointments in the next installment, although it won't be answering the same question you asked.
I'm just here for the talk about 15th century conciliarism. (Okay, not quite true)
Haec Sancta or the opening councils were confirmed by several different popes. You mentioned the one Martin V quote, though people make a fuss over the word "concilialiter." He also has the bull inter cunctas, where he requires the hussites etc. to adhere to the council of constance, without specifying that he only means part of it. Basel definitely affirmed it, repeating it like four times. Arguably, Eugenius IV affirmed it in the bull Dudum Sacrum, but as he only says that his previously attempted dissolution was vain and of no effect, and that, "ipsum sacrum Generale Concilium Basileense pure, simpliciter et cum effectu ac omni devotione et favore prosequimur et prosequi intendimus", from half way through the council, some take that as less than a full approbation of what had happened to that point. But Ferrara (which then moved to Florence) treats itself as a continuation of Basel, as well. Eugenius' bull Moyses Vir treats Haec Sancta as a legit decree of the council (saying that Basel is just misinterpreting it). Pius II in his third retractation also affirms the council, explicitly in respect to what it says about the authority of councils, which can only be found in the 4th and 5th sessions. Both of these last ones would lend credence to the position that Haec Sancta is legit, but constrained in its application.
Anyway, there definitely seem to have been other councils convoked without papal approval. Vigilius actually forbade what became the 5th ecumenical council from meeting; that's awfully hard to construe as a convocation. He only eventually after accepted it, after they struck him from the diptychs and being imprisoned. I also think, but I would have to check, that Constantinople 1, like the one that we get the Nicene Creed from, was not originally accepted by Rome. It was presided over, at first, by Meletius, whom Rome was not in communion with at the time, and I think it only accepted it after 15 or 20 years had passed.
Anyway, uh, the rest of your article's interesting too.
I have no comment on Haec Sancta, as I am still working through the documents. I don't think Haec Sancta threatens the Church when read in light of (e.g.) Lumen Gentium (sounds like this aligns with your view of "legit but constrained"), so it's mostly an academic question for me, but holy cow is it ever a complicated one. It is, for example, at least not immediately obvious to me (a layman) that Martin V's demand that the Hussites adhere to the Council of Constance includes Haec Sancta, if the session where Haec Sancta was not, properly speaking, part of the Council of Constance (which, on the "mainstream" Catholic view, was not a council until at least its fourteenth session). But I haven't actually *read* Inter Cunctas yet, just commentaries on it, so it would be a mistake for me to run my mouth about it, and I mention this only to illustrate how unsettled my own mind is at the moment.
> Anyway, there definitely seem to have been other councils convoked without papal approval. Vigilius actually forbade what became the 5th ecumenical council from meeting; that's awfully hard to construe as a convocation.
Well, this is complicated, because Vigilius *did* formally convoke the council in cooperation with the Emperor in 550, then, outraged, tried to withdraw it in 551 after Justinian tried to screw him on the number of bishops present, but never actually issued any formal withdrawal. So if you just look at the public documents, what we find is that Pope Vigilius, in cooperation with the emperor, convoked the council, and that's the end of official statements on the matter.
Vigilius later appears to have accepted the presidency of the council anyway (going by the January letters Patriarch Eutychius read out during the first session in May). Then, when the council actually opened, he refused show up, unconvincingly pleading illness. Meanwhile, the council repeatedly offered him the presidency (which is his by right) and mourns his supposed inability to be present (when everyone knows he's not there as a protest).
So, yes, there's this whole background political game being played, but, *formally speaking*, Constantinople II appears to have been convoked by the pope, the presidency duly offered to the pope, and its acts subsequently confirmed by the pope.
All I know about Constantinople I's convocation is what Bellarmine writes in his On Councils:
"Theodoret relates about the first Council of Constantinople that Theodosius did not summon it as much as he sent the letters of Pope Damasus, whereby he summoned the Bishops to the Council. In this way the Bishops gathered in that Council wrote to Pope Damasus (cited by Theodored hist. lib. 5 ca. 9): 'At your reverence's command in the letters sent to the most holy emperor Theodosius in the previous year, we were prepared to make the journey to Constantinople.' Therefore, although Theodosius had summoned the Council, nevertheless, he did so at the command of Apostolic letters. This is why in the sixth Council, act. 18, the Fathers say Theodosius and Damasus opposed Macedonius by means of the second Council, just as it was said a little earlier, that Constantine and Sylvester gathered the first Council to resist Arius." (Chapter XIII: Arguments are Answered)
And later, in his discussion of the presidency:
"The second general Council was the first Council of Constantinople, in which it is certain the Emperor did not preside, but only sent the letters of the Roman pontiff to Bishops, whereby they were called to the Council [citation omitted]. It is also certain that the Roman Pontiff did not preside, rather, Nectarius, the Bishop of Constantinople. The reason for this is because the Roman Pontiff was not present, either himself or through legates. For Pope Damasus called together the Bishops of the East at Constantinople, but later wanted them to come to Rome from there, where he would summon a Council of western Bishops, so that the fullest Council would take place at Rome. The Remainder of the eastern bishops excused themselves on account of just causes, and joined their mind and teachings with the western Bishops, but not their physical presence. [citation omitted because my fingers are tired of typing this out of the book] Moreover, what if Damasus were present? Without a doubt he would have presided, as is clear from the same epistles, where they acknowledge Damasus as their head, and he calls them sons." (Chapter XIX: Who Presides at a General Council?)
Granted, St. Bellarmine is hundreds of years out-of-date from contemporary historical sources, so, for all I know, he's missing a lot. And he was writing with a definite point of view, which may well have biased him. Still, that's what I know about Constantinople I's legitimacy.
There's often been dispute over some of the disciplinary canons of Constantinople I, and I don't think you're wrote that some of that dispute broke out right away, but, to my awareness, Constantinople I was convened with Rome's consent and its doctrinal decisions (Canon 1 and the Creed) were confirmed by Rome more or less immediately (with the caveat that nothing was "immediate" in the ancient world due to slow communication).
I think I agree that Inter Cunctas doesn't entail that. It's just, a general endorsement, without qualification, by someone who was a part of the Pisan party would incline towards it being an endorsement of the whole.
Regarding the other two councils, fair, I wasn't aware of those complications. Bellarmine's more detailed, I guess, than what I knew up to this point.
But checking back, I just saw, "a general council may be convoked and presided over solely by a valid pope!"
There were many councils that were neither convoked by, nor presided over, by the pope. In fact, my impression was that that was the case for all of the first seven ecumenical councils, which were generally convoked by the emperor, and presided over by non-pope bishops.
I'll start by sketching Bellarmine's view, because Bellarmine's view of conciliar or papal authority is, in most cases, the default mainstream Catholic view today.
Bellarmine argues (at considerable length, with citations for each) that each of the first seven ecumenical councils were convoked at the advice and with the consent of the pope, with the emperor functioning as a mere "summoner" or facilitator (because it would be very hard to gather hundreds of people *without* imperial support, and because councils were expensive, and the money came out of the imperial treasury).
On the one hand, Bellarmine doesn't believe that it is strictly necessary for validity for the council to be commanded by the pope. He thinks that mere papal consent to an imperial convocation counts (although imperfect). He writes: "A general Catholic Council summoned by the Emperor alone is null, i.e. without the consent and authority of the Roman pontiff, and I shall briefly show this from each of them one by one."
On the other hand, he defends the position (with a blizzard of citations I have not pursued) that all of the first seven councils were in fact convoked by the pope through the emperor, not by the emperor with the pope's mere consent. (Again, a grain of salt about these claims, since I'm sure the field of history has learned one or two things in the past four hundred years.) (Also, Bellarmine is obviously speaking about formal acts, because he knew as well as you and I do that the political realities surrounding, e.g., Vigilius and Constantinople II were a lot more complicated.)
As for the presidency: Bellarmine's position is that the pope is entitled to the presidency of any valid ecumenical council, but it is not necessary for validity for him to actually preside. He may preside personally, send legates to preside in his stead, or allow another president altogether, so long as the council operates with his consent (formal consent sufficing if more deep-seated support is lacking) and at least presumptively recognizes the pope's authority to preside. He then argues that each of the councils comports with this view, and is rather harsh to some of the claims of Calvin and the Centuriators on the other side. For example, on Chalcedon: "This history, which Calvin recites without any proof, is full of lies... [Calvin tells] the most impudent lie, since nothing of the sort is related by anyone, nay more, we see that Leo absolutely sent legates to preside, and sought consent from no one, still less by favor or permission."
So Bellarmine's view is that, for ecumenical validity, a council must be convoked by papal consent (and that in actual fact they were all convoked by papal *command*), must be open to presidency by the pope or his legates, and most be confirmed by the pope.
Lumen Gentium, the modern Catholic synthesis on the authority of bishops, takes a somewhat gentler view: "A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them." This makes papal convocation and presidency a mere prerogative, while only papal acceptance is required for validity. Nevertheless, it remains the mainstream view that recognition of the papal prerogatives is, at least, pretty important, so a council convoked outside papal authority, without his consent, and without him being offered the presidency (or at least presumed to have a right to the presidency) is at least *presumptively* invalid.
This is all, of course, a *great* deal more nuanced than I presented it in that brief parenthetical in the main body of the article. By any Catholic standard, Pisa had no authority to do what it purported to do, but I admit to giving it short shrift!
Interesting. Well, I suppose the place to proceed next on this topic (well, aside from me actually needing to read Bellarmine) would be to dig up some Gallicans or Protestants responding to Bellarmine on this topic and see what they say.
P.S. I say all of this merely to detail the Catholic view. It is not an attempt to persuade you that the Catholic view is correct, and I recognize that I have offered no evidence that it is.
(A key problem with the common Catholic view of conciliar and papal infallibility, in my opinion, is that it is often defended or advanced *before* it is actually defined!)
On the one hand, I agree it does seem fitting for the other Patriarchs to be the ones to declare a claimant Pope invalid. On the other hand, the Eastern Catholic Churches put together are <2% the size of the Latin Church; even if the Eastern Orthodox Church as a whole reunified it'd still be 20% the size! That makes me want to look farther.
On the gripping hand, perhaps the answer is that the Pope should take another leaf from the Eastern Churches (and Anglicans) and split off parts of the Latin Church into new autocephalous Churches of their own?
I don't think Christian unity allows for "completely authcephalous" churches like in the East. (Nice Pournelle reference BTW). Otherwise, I agree with the eastern patriarchs having a role.
Myself, as a Protestant, I'm fine with autocephality (though please not along national borders, which smacks far too much of phyletism; I indict many Protestant churches here along with many of the Easterners).
But in contemplating a design for the Roman Catholic Church, I was meaning the same sort of autonomy you already give the Eastern Catholic Churches; is there a more precise word for it?
We use the term "sui iuris." Or, at least that's the term I always hear.
The precise difference between an autocephalous church and a sui iuris church is, I confess, beyond my knowledge -- but I think I both understand what you mean (and basically agree with it) and understand why Phil raised an objection to the terminology.
The Eastern rite Catholic Churches although largely self-governing are still subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome (who once bore the title Patriarch of the West). The Eastern Orthodox autocephalous churches are completely independent. This is why there is an impending split between the Patriarch of Constantinople and most of the Eastern churches, including the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the Russian patriarch, which doesn’t recognize the independence of the Ukranian Orthodox Church.
Visible unity in Christ is more prized among Catholics and Orthodox than among Protestants, who are endlessly split because there is no way to resolve doctrinal disputes.
Wait, what was the Pournelle reference?
https://www.amazon.com/Gripping-Hand-Jerry-Pournelle/dp/1476791236
Good SF read by Jerry Pournelle. But to really understand it, you need first to read “The Mote in God’;s Eye” by the same 2 authors: https://www.amazon.com/Mote-Gods-Eye-Larry-Niven/dp/0671741926/ref=asc_df_0671741926
Yes, I recommend both the books - "Mote in God's Eye" is excellent; "Gripping Hand" is the sequel, not as great but also fun.
Stay tuned!
Bringing in a comment I made elsewhere about this:
Forget PoliSci folks, what governments around the world need in charge are CompSci guys, for at least a term's worth or two. Not to pass any new legislation, but to refactor and codify everything that's already there, and to install meaningful version control for the Code of Law
Can't wait for our new CS overlords to put the entire Internal Revenue Code on github and rename "legislation" to "pull requests."
"what the bleep kind of moron wrote this garbage law? git blame"
"Madison J a4def33 3/28/1799"
"dammit"
https://www.monkeyuser.com/2018/blame/
A few comments.
“For example, the United States has three constitutional amendments and extensive statutory provisions ironing out the finer details of presidential succession, plus the uncodified institution of the “designated survivor,” just in case. Most of us don’t know the implementation details, but we all know that this system exists, that there is always a single clear answer to the question, “Who is the President of the United States?””
Actually, there is not always a single clear answer from what I can determine. We have the order of succession, certainly, and then… nothing. They have the designated survivor protocol to guard against it, but what if something happens that wipes out everyone anyway? No Constitutional amendment or law, as far as I can tell, gives any response. If everyone in line of succession died, it looks to me like we'd just be without a President until the next election.
It is not impossible to govern without a President. In some ways it might make things easier; it'd basically implement your idea of ditching the veto, so Congress could actually pass legislation more easily, but it'd also mean you couldn't actually appoint anyone until you got a new President.
More plausibly I expect an event like this would cause even the dysfunctional Congress to come up with an Amendment specifying what would happen in such a situation, and get the states to ratify it quickly. Still, it does seem like right now we wouldn't necessarily always have a single clear answer to the question of who is President (well, I suppose "there is no President" is a clear answer).
EDIT: Evan Þ in a response has answered the above portion of my post. But I'll keep it above for reference so people know what he is responding to.
"As pope, one of my first acts would be to fix this. The papal electoral body would have designated survivors. Specific legislation would address the situation where all the electors are wiped out."
Yes, this makes a lot of sense. I think from a Catholic standpoint the argument that God just wouldn't allow it to happen makes the most sense (as a counterargument you mention the Western Schism as something God allowed, but an instance where there is a pope but it's confusing to figure out who is a massive difference from a situation where there is no way to have a conclave), but nevertheless setting up a contingency plan is still a good idea. Unlike the Presidential issue discussed above, bishops can't just pass a new amendment.
"One more example, a fictional one: suppose the conclave elected a pope who later turned out to be a woman. I’m not talking about an apparent man with an XX intersex condition like Cardinal Benitez in Conclave. I’m talking a full-blown Pope Joan situation. The conclave elects a perfectly healthy, anatomically normal woman (thinking she is a man), and the way the world finds out is when, eight months after the election, she secretly gives birth to a son—and the tabloids get pictures! In Catholicism, only a male can be ordained a cleric, including bishop of Rome. (Jesus did not give the Church express authority to ordain anyone else.11) Therefore, Antipope Joan’s papacy would be utterly null and void, and this would be manifestly clear to the entire Catholic world."
I disagree on this. Under the paradigm you describe, it seems we would have fulfilled the requirement of universal peaceful acceptance of a pope. That means they're the pope. One place that explains this well is https://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html. This doctrine has long been a thorn in the side of sedevacantists, which is why they either have to deny it as doctrine or misrepresent it (e.g. I saw one guy claim that John XXIII long being included in the line of popes, but later removed, showed it wasn't the case--but the "peaceful" acceptance was only well after his "papacy", not during it).
Therefore, trying to set up any kind of tribunal to "judge" this issue after the fact is pointless, as the issue was already judged. So if the situation you describe occurs, it seems the answer is simply that Roman Catholicism has shown itself to be false, and to go find another denomination and move on, like what you describe in your hypothetical in footnote #15. Setting up a tribunal to try officiate a contested election (where there ISN'T universal peaceful acceptance) might be worth doing, though. It hasn't happened in centuries but I suppose it's always something that could theoretically happen.
"Update for readers who don’t care about the Catholic stuff: I spent most of today (June 9) working on the next installment of Some Constitutional Amendments, this time finally dealing with the Senate. Whereas I have proposed making the House raucously democratic, my recommendation will be to take the Senate in the opposite direction."
This could be interesting. Given what you have said in previous posts, I am sure whatever idea you have takes into account one of the largest issues with simply going back to the way Senators were previously chosen: The fact it'd just turn all the state legislature races into Senate races in the same way that while you technically vote for electors for President, functionally speaking everyone just votes for their preferred presidential candidate. While problematic for the President, at least here you have the electors only casting their vote for President and Vice President, whereas a return to the old way of electing Senators would be as if you had modern presidential elections except instead of just casting their vote and going home, the electors stuck around and voted on bills.
Personally, the change I want most for the Senate would be to, instead of having Senators of 6-year terms where 1/3 is changed every two years, all Senators are elected for 4-year terms and 1/2 of the Senate is changed every two years. Part of this, I admit, is I simply find it more convenient to have every state have a Senate election every two years rather than the more confusing schedule we have now where some do but others do not, but I also dislike the 6-year term for being a bit long anyway, allowing Senators to have the voters forget about things at the start of their term by the time they run for re-election. Such a change in my mind would still keep the Senate more stable than the house (only half of it is up for election every two years).
If something wipes out everyone in the line of succession to the US Presidency, there're two clear answers.
Per the Presidential Succession Act, Congress convenes to elect a new Speaker of the House or President pro tem of the Senate, who immediately becomes President. If Congress is all dead too, then some governor can instantly appoint two interim Senators. They can meet as the Senate, scrupulously avoid remarking on the lack of a quorum, and choose one of themselves as President pro tem of the Senate who immediately becomes President.
Congress could if it wanted amend the Presidential Succession Act to give a longer list, but I'm fine with this Congressional bootstrapping protocol as a last resort.
Ah, okay. I missed that when I was looking up information. (in retrospect, it is a bit obvious that they could just make a new Speaker of the House and then they become President)
Sorry; it took me a while to read the post on "universal and peaceful acceptance." (Had to get the Senate Part II draft into the "polishing" phase before I could really come up for air.)
I am fond of this doctrine, and I have (obviously) found it useful in discussions with sedes. There are very good reasons for believing that the universal and peaceful acceptance of a pope means he's the pope. Beyond that, here are a number of good reasons for believing that universal and peaceful acceptance makes the identity of the pope into an infallible dogmatic fact. I did *not* realize how many august authorities had weighed in on this doctrine in its favor, and it was pleasing to read them. I love the Benedict-specific Q&A
Still, the doctrine has never been formally defined by a council or pope (Inter Cunctas counts as a papal endorsement but not, I think, a formal definition), so it inhabits a strange middle space: it is sententia communis (and therefore one can validly dissent from the belief) that the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope establishes his validity de fide (and therefore one *cannot* validly dissent from the belief). Also, because it has never been formally defined, there remain some gray areas around the edges (like, what *exactly* counts as "universal"?). Overall, the teaching is not *so* well-established in Catholic thought that I would personally think the Catholic Church had been disproved if it were contradicted; I would instead conclude that the sententia communis had been mistaken, as it rarely but occasionally is.
However, I can understand why someone more convinced of the doctrine might think otherwise, and might leave the Church over it. I can *also* understand why someone a little more convinced of the doctrine would therefore find it counterproductive to have a "validity tribunal" like I suggested in the article, when simply teaching ex cathedra that universal and peaceful acceptance == validity.
Thanks for making me think! You definitely did.
James, regarding footnote 15, and trying to understand the fullness of the argument. Why convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and not full-blown embrace atheism? i.e. why the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Catholic Church and not the whole of Christianity? Real question that I asked myself, discussed with my calvinist girlfriend and couldn’t figure out an answer. Best Regards!
Here is how I see it. I suppose one may certainly see it in several different ways! But this is the view I am slowly (slowwwwwwwwly) building up for my kids in my Letters to a Growing Catholic series.
I have effectively absolute certainty (or the closest thing that passes for it in this life) that there is an immaterial, eternal First Cause, because logic clearly requires this.
I retain a small amount of doubt because I make mistakes sometimes, even about obvious things, but not very much doubt. (e.g. I am a perfectly normal heliocentrist who thinks flat-earthers are largely crazy, but I have more doubt about heliocentrism than theism.)
I have moral certainty (which is a bit less than absolute certainty) that this First Cause has the nature of a person, or something rather like a person, because this seems to follow from further logic. But it's a little further down the logic tree, and the arguments are a little more complicated, so the chances that I made a mistake are a bit higher.
It is impossible to have as much confidence in the claims of history than in the claims of logic. The truths of history simply can't be known in that way, and are always subject to possible revision. I have the very highest historical confidence that Jesus of Nazereth lived and preached. This is still less than my confidence in, say, the Pythagorean theorem, but about the same amount of confidence I have in, say, common accounts of the Battle of Chancellorsville.
Then there's this claim that Jesus rose from the dead, and the related claim that this proves Jesus was God. These claims are both dependent on prior claims. That is, I could deny Jesus's resurrection without denying His existence, but I could not coherently deny Jesus's existence while affirming His resurrection. Since these claims depend on those earlier claims, these claims are less certain than those claims.
Then we start to get into the really tricky claims: claims about the specific reliability of each and every passage of the Gospel; claims about the correct *interpretation* of each and every passage of the Gospel; claims about whether there is *legitimate authority* that can pronounce definitively on those interpretations; claims about *which* putative authority that might be. I follow a chain of historical, logical, and Scriptural evidence that leads me to conclude that the Catholic Church headed by the Pope has the authority from Christ to pronounce definitively on Scriptural interpretation. However, each claim in that chain is built on all the prior claims, and therefore less certain than them. My confidence in the claim that Catholicism is true is therefore *necessarily* much lower than my confidence that Christianity is true, and that, in turn, quite a bit lower than my confidence that Jesus really existed, which still doesn't approach my confidence that God exists.
Many of these claims are also much more hotly contested -- and much more *plausibly* contested. Orthodox and Protestant claims about the ecclesiology of the first millennium make a lot more sense than Richard Dawkins' atheism, and are often harder to refute. The Catholic interpretation of Matt 16:18-19 is, I believe, the best interpretation, but there are other interpretations. Ask an Orthodox apologist and he'll talk your ear off about them. Even Protestant leaflet-droppers usually have some training in responding to Matt 16:18-19 and Catholic claims about the structure and nature of the Church!
I'm pretty confident Jesus rose from the dead. I'd stake my life on it, and I suppose I have done so. But if you built a time machine, went back to 33 A.D., filmed the crucifixion, and showed me video proof that the Sons of Thunder took His body down from the Cross and buried it in a potter's field where it was unearthed and eaten by wolves, I would have to update my belief in the Resurrection to "nope." Losing belief in the Resurrection would also necessarily mean losing my belief in Jesus's divinity and all claims downstream of that: the reliability of the Gospel, the interpretation of said Gospel, and all the rest. I would *also* have to update a number of other beliefs about the correct interpretation of historical evidence, which had led me to my now-demonstrably false conclusion. This would be very painful and would obviously constitute a major crisis in my life.
However, losing the Resurrection would have no effect on any *upstream* beliefs. Theism is still clearly correct, whether or not Christianity specifically is true or not. Christianity is dependent upon theism, but theism is in no way dependent upon Christianity. I'd still be a theist.
Likewise, I'm fairly confident Catholicism is right. However, if the Pope taught clear error, that would force me to update my beliefs about the Catholic interpretation of Matt 16:18-19, as well as all other beliefs downstream of my belief in the authority of the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture. I would have to reorient my whole way of thinking about Scripture to deal with the discovery that I'd been doing it wrong, and this would be a crisis for me.
However, there's no good reason for this crisis to threaten my upstream beliefs. The papacy's failure would not necessarily prove that the gates of hell had prevailed against the church founded by Christ. It seems far more likely that it would prove I had misinterpreted what Christ meant by "His Church" and/or "the gates of Hell" and/or "prevail against"... which is exactly what several million Orthos and Prots have been shouting at me for centuries! The papacy's failure would cast no doubt on the good independent evidence we have for the Resurrection, much less theism, so would not diminish my belief in either one.
Where does a man go if he believes in theism, Christ and the Resurrection, the Scriptures, and the Trinity, but also believes Catholic teachings about the teaching authority of the papacy are flat-out wrong? Orthodoxy always seemed the most natural answer to that question to me. I know that some people think Protestantism makes more sense (especially Protestants themselves!). Thus footnote 15.
Where I think some people might not be able to follow me on this is that I think some people believe in Christ's Resurrection *because* they believe in the authority of the pope. Sometimes this takes the form of a circular argument: one believes in the pope because of the Resurrection and the Resurrection because of the pope. (Protestants do the same thing sometimes, but with "Scripture" instead of "the pope.") Other times, it's not circular, but is instead an entire faith based on, for example, Belloc's line about how a Church this messed-up must be true. When one's belief in the Resurrection is in fact "downstream" of one's belief in the papacy, then, yes, losing faith in the papacy means losing the whole Christian kaboodle. However, I think that's a very brittle form of Catholicism anyway, vulnerable to attack from many angles even without the papacy failing, and it's not (in my opinion) the way the Catholicism itself teaches us to be Catholic.
(I have said a prayer for you, your girlfriend, and her conversion to the fullness of Christian truth!)
I think they should do a spinoff of Person of Interest where the team fights the mafia at the Vatican :) :) :)
Oh, MAN I've been trying to think of a good spinoff idea for PoI and I haven't been able to find the right hook!
ITALY: The Church! The Mafia! The Pizza!
Harold adoring the art / cringing at all the gunfire-related damage to all the art!
Perfect.