Surrounding the Choosing of a New Pope
The world seemed mesmerized with the magnificent pomp
and ceremony surrounding the announcement of Cardinal Robert Prevost as the
next pope. In the excitement of it all, Catholic news journalists found
themselves declaring religious dogma rather than objectively reporting the
news. One Fox News reporter, for example, could not contain his excitement, and gushed
forth calling the new pope, “the direct descendant of Saint Peter.”
There
is, of course, no biblical basis for such pomp and ceremony, nor for the pope
being the successor of Peter. Jesus spoke against the use of special outward
clothing and titles for self-promotion. He warned Peter and the other apostles,
But
you, do not be called “Rabbi”: for One is your teacher, the Christ, and you are
all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your “father;” for One is your
Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called “teachers;” for One is your
Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant
(Matthew 23:8-11).
In
the New Testament, we find no sign of hierarchy in the leadership of the
church. Words that carried connotations of authority such as archon
(ruler), timē (rank), and despot (master) are used of Jewish and
secular rulers but are glaringly missing in regard to Christian leaders.
Instead, the word diakonos is used for Christian leaders and it is a word that means “servant” and carries no connotations of status, rank or authority. This means that the pomp and pageantry of the modern Roman Catholic Church cannot be traced to Jesus and the New Testament, but to Constantine and imperial Rome.
The Source of the Pomp and Pageantry Surrounding the
Pope
When
the Roman emperor, Constantine, converted to Christianity in 312, he began
bestowing special favors on the Christians. He built magnificent buildings for their
gatherings and made elevated throne-like seating for the bishops. He also began
funding the salaries of the bishops. The church obviously had an impact on the
emperor, but the emperor seems to have had an even greater impact on the
church.
Constantine
convened, at government expense, a church council that became known as the
Council of Nicaea. Although he had not been baptized, Constantine opened this
council and intervened in the discussions of the bishops at certain points. The
most widely read Roman Catholic theologian in the world today, the late Dr.
Hans Kung, wrote,
Constantine used this first council not least to adapt the church organization to the state organization. The church provinces were to correspond to the imperial provinces, each with a metropolitan and a provincial synod. In other words, the empire now had its imperial church (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 50-51).
This
was the Romanizing of Christianity. The bishop of Rome now had special status
afforded to him by the emperor. This status would be greatly increased when, in
330, Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to the town of
Byzantine located in present day Turkey. Constantine renamed the town
Constantinople, after himself. It is today known as Istanbul.
The
power vacuum left in Rome by the removal of all the governmental apparatus from
Rome to Byzantine was filled by the bishop of Rome who began to make his claim
that he was the successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the head of
all Christendom.
The Fabled “Donation of Constantine”
In
the eighth century a fable began to be used by the popes and the Roman Church
that supported and enhanced those claims. This fable, known as “The Donation of
Constantine,” is now recognized as a myth by both Catholic and Protestant
historians. Nonetheless, it served its purpose in infusing the papacy with
imperial pomp and authority.
According to this fable, Constantine, the
persecutor of Christians, was smitten with leprosy and then healed by Pope
Silvester who also converted him and baptized him. When Constantine later
decided to move the capital to Constantinople without papal approval, he soon
realized his sin and came and prostrated himself before Pope Silvester. When
his sin was forgiven, he then moved the
capital to Constantinople with the pope’s consent.
According
to this myth, before departing, Constantine bestowed on Silvester the right to
wear the Roman imperial insignia and robes and bequeathed to him Rome and all
the provinces and cities in Italy and the western regions. In other words,
Constantine bestowed on the Roman bishop a kingly royalty and authority like
that of an emperor over all the cities and churches of the West.
Popes
latched on to this fable and it became the basis for the papal throne and the
pope’s royal insignia, garments, entourage and crown. It became the basis for
popes exercising civil as well as spiritual authority.
In
addition, the story implied that Constantine had received his authority for
establishing the Byzantine empire of the East from the bishop of Rome. This was
used by later popes to claim universal authority over all churches everywhere,
even those of Byzantine.
Found to be False
It was not until the 15th century that this story was
challenged by the Catholic official and historian, Lorenzo Valla. The Donation
of Constantine is now widely recognized, even by Catholic historians, as
fictitious. Nonetheless, it served its purpose in providing a powerful argument for
the medieval popes to further their claims of universal preeminence and
authority.
Indeed, after Constantine, the Romanizing of the church
continued, leading the historian, Rudolph Sohm, to say, “The constitution of
the Church was, in the main, modeled on the organization of the Empire.” And
the late Cardinal Leon Joseph Suenens admitted,
When I was young the Church was presented to us as a hierarchical society: it was described as “juridically perfect,” having within itself all the powers necessary to insure and promote its own existence. This view reflected an image of the Church which was closely modeled on civil, and even military, society (Hyatt, Infallible Pope: Key to Unity or Source of Division, 29).
After Constantine,
the bishops were generally looked upon as the successors of the apostles and
the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, the chief of the apostles. They
began dressing in imperial regalia, surrounded by Romish pomp and ceremony.
This was based, not on Scripture, but on Roman imperial custom and law. Kung
has commented on this, saying,
Bishops were accorded secular titles,
insignia and privileges which up to then had been reserved for the emperor or
high officials: candles, incense, a throne, shoes, the maniple, the pallium and
so on (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 49-50).
So,
the grandiose ritual and ceremony that we have observed in the choosing of a
new pope is clearly rooted in ancient, imperial Rome, not in Jesus and the New
Testament.
Consider Ourselves
But
before we become too critical, we must come down off our own religious thrones
and consider to what degree we have been impacted by modern culture. To what
degree are we preaching an “Americanized” Gospel that has more in common with Hollywood
and Wall Street than with Jesus and the New Testament?
There
is plenty of room for repentance in Protestantism as well as Catholicism. Let
us, therefore, pray for the new pope and pray that during the next decade there
will be a return to Jesus and the New Testament throughout the universal
church. We have the promise of Joel 2:28, repeated by Peter in Acts 2:17,
And
it shall come to pass in the last days,” says God, that I will pour out of My
Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young
men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams, and on My menservants
and on My maidservants I will pour out of My Spirit in those days, and they
shall prophesy.
Dr.
Eddie L. Hyatt is a Bible teacher, historian, and revivalist. This article was
derived from two of his books, Apostolic Leadership and Infallible Pope: Key to Unity or Source of Division. Both are available from Amazon
and his website at www.eddiehyatt.com.
Nice article. Thanks!!
ReplyDelete