Imperium Romanum Mortuum Est -- Deo Gratias!
"The Roman Empire Is Dead -- Thank God!"
The Bishop of Rome has had a thousand years' more practice pretending to be the Roman Emperor than the Patriarch of Constantinople does. (Imperial Rome fell about 450 A.D., and Constantinople fell in 1453.)
Both have the idea that they have the inalienable right to rule the whole of the Church -- each after its own pattern. The Western Pattern is more consciously Imperial -- in default of a Western Emperor, the Papacy was the only structure which the various polities could rally around to create at least an ideal unity; The Eastern pattern attempts to continue the relationship that the Eastern Churches had with the Eastern Emerors -- that of the Department of Religious Affairs of the Imperial Government structure.
Since about 600 A.D., the Papacy had been working to extend its political hegemony over the entire Church -- and the entire world. Until after the Council of Trent (1545-1563), this had been more theoretical than practical. The Papacy and the emerging nation-states of Western Europe jousted for influence, mostly equally. The Papacy did manage to gain political control over a collection of small Italian states, which lasted until 1870.
The various Western national Churches -- England, France, Spain, etc., were essentially self-governing (with frequent appeals to Rome to settle arguments) until after Trent. In particular, the French Church fiercely defended its independence from direct Roman rule until after the Revolution.
The Eastern Churches, on the other hand, identified themselves closely with the dominant political power -- originally the Eastern Roman Empire, later the Turkish Sultanate and the various national governments -- Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, etc.
In keeping with the Acta of the 1st Council of Nicea, the East preserves the idea of the ecclesial independence of the individual bishop in his See, and of the larger ethnic and geographical groups -- autocephalous Patriarchates (again, Serbia and others) which have been allowed to grow up.
Each of these Patriarchates, however, welded itself as best it might to the local political establishment. The Mohammedan Turkish Sultanate used the Patriarchate of Constantinople to rule its Orthodox citizens, but identification with the Turk was not something easy to stomach!
The various Patriarchates in the East spent a great deal (entirely too much) of their time and energy fighting their political masters' battles, often with each other. They developed an ideology which said, in effect: "The way WE do things is the only authentic one, received unchanged from the Apostles". Which was (and is) not true, but useful as propaganda.
So here we had two different ecclesial systems, each striving for mundane political power. The results are interesting.
In the West, being the only Patriarchate (Carthage might have been another, but was destroyed by the Vandals in the 5th & 6th Century, then overrun by Mohammedans), Rome developed over time a unified structure of control. The various National Churches may have protested their independence, but were quite willing to copy Roman methods and Roman organization -- even Roman Liturgy.
The Roman ideal of governance was explicitly that of the Roman Empire -- an all-powerful central administration, controlling the chaotic and unbridled tendencies of an unenlightened mob. This view grew out of the political interactions between the Senatorial and Plebian classes in Republican Rome, and has persisted for about 2700 years now.
This lust for absolute power has colored both the political history of the Papacy and the pastoral practice of the Western Church -- including its stepchildren, the Protestants. And not in a good sense, either.
The idea of Papal supremacy impinged on the supremacy of the Bishop in his See, and the supremacy of the pastor in his parish, and extended itself down further, to the supremacy of the religious over the laity. It is a structure of control and command, with very little room for love and transcendance.
The mundane political results of this Roman idea of absolute control were horrifying. The Papal States before 1870 were ruled with an iron hand, secret police, and confiscatory taxation. To this day -- 106 years later -- the parts of Italy -- including Rome itself -- which were part of the Papal states are anti-clerical, and consistently vote Communist. The Roman Curia mismanaged and tyrannized their people, just as the Roman Senate and the Byzantine Emperors had.
I grew up under the perfection of this system in the 1950s. It was awe-inspiring and perfectly dreadful. Everything could be rigorously proven by Scholastic logic -- down to the individual level -- and one had only the most minuscule chance of obtaining heaven, and then only by observing every jot and tittle of the rules and obeying one's religious superiors. Rome had developed its own, home-grown version of Calvinism -- often called Jansenism.
Vatican II was called by Pope John of blessed memory, specifically to combat that cold, dead hand of Roman Imperial tyranny. It was to be a pastoral council -- calling the Church to a more open and loving approach to the People of God. No doctrinal changes -- nor any but the most superficial liturgical ones -- were contemplated. The Documents of the Council clearly reflect this,
It is interesting to see, however, how the Council has been interpreted. The entire structure of command and control, has been retained. Bishops and National Committees have more formal authority, and indeed often ignore Rome, but clerical elitism and superbia have not changed a whit.
Theology, the liturgy, and the artistic patrimony of the Western Church have been savaged, but Roman Imperial command and control has been preserved. It is this Imperial command -- and basic scorn for the People of God -- which led to the recent sexual scandals. At base, no one in the hierarchy cared -- as long as the pastors made their financial quotas, they could do as they liked with and to their people. Higher clerics were not immune from scandal -- just from exposure. The recently deposed bishop of Santa Rosa in California was not the only bishop carrying on homosexual relations with his clergy. (If is was with a WOMAN, for God's sake, great scandal would ensue -- but men? That's not really the same, after all.)
The results of the "Spirit of Vatican II" has been a clericus which, by and large, no longer believes what the Church has taught is the Christian religion, and cynically manipulates the laity. The laity are educated now, and not intimidated -- they have been voting with their feet -- and exercising the veto of the pocketbook. (A dollar a week in the basket, for a family of 3 or 4, making $50k+ a year).
=====================
There is a story told by the Orthodox in the US:
"How do you know two bishops are truly Orthodox?"
"Easy -- when they meet, they first kiss each others' shoulders, then they excommunicate each other."
Orthodox hierarchs spend more time bickering and exercising Eastern Roman Imperial pretensions than they should. Beautiful liturgies are one thing -- pomp and circumstance are quite another.
Another symptom of the Phyletism (Ethno-centrism) that afflicts the Orthodox is lack of ability to work together. Central authority and widespread missionary Orders in the West have allowed concentration of people and money resurces on a worldwide scale -- to the point where there are 5 Roman Catholics for every 1 Orthodox. The people of the various ethnic churches nowadays feel that they are all one Church, but the idea has not percolated up the hierarchy as yet.
===========================
The point of this whole Jeremiad is that the assumptions about power inherited from the Roman Empire simply do not work in this day and age. The verities of the Faith certainly work, and are as relevant now as they were in the 1st Century A.D., but the way we structure the Institutional Church, and the way we look at the People of God need to change.
The laity is increasingly well-educated, and unwilling to be dictated to. I have found it useful -- and a lot less work (tyranny is a hard job) -- to talk to peoples' good sense, to explain what the Church teaches, and invite them to join the hosts of the faithful and joyful worshippers, rather than try to herd or compel them.
Let us then resolve to give Imperial Roman ideas of religious tyranny the decent burial they so richly deserve.
The Bishop of Rome has had a thousand years' more practice pretending to be the Roman Emperor than the Patriarch of Constantinople does. (Imperial Rome fell about 450 A.D., and Constantinople fell in 1453.)
Both have the idea that they have the inalienable right to rule the whole of the Church -- each after its own pattern. The Western Pattern is more consciously Imperial -- in default of a Western Emperor, the Papacy was the only structure which the various polities could rally around to create at least an ideal unity; The Eastern pattern attempts to continue the relationship that the Eastern Churches had with the Eastern Emerors -- that of the Department of Religious Affairs of the Imperial Government structure.
Since about 600 A.D., the Papacy had been working to extend its political hegemony over the entire Church -- and the entire world. Until after the Council of Trent (1545-1563), this had been more theoretical than practical. The Papacy and the emerging nation-states of Western Europe jousted for influence, mostly equally. The Papacy did manage to gain political control over a collection of small Italian states, which lasted until 1870.
The various Western national Churches -- England, France, Spain, etc., were essentially self-governing (with frequent appeals to Rome to settle arguments) until after Trent. In particular, the French Church fiercely defended its independence from direct Roman rule until after the Revolution.
The Eastern Churches, on the other hand, identified themselves closely with the dominant political power -- originally the Eastern Roman Empire, later the Turkish Sultanate and the various national governments -- Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, etc.
In keeping with the Acta of the 1st Council of Nicea, the East preserves the idea of the ecclesial independence of the individual bishop in his See, and of the larger ethnic and geographical groups -- autocephalous Patriarchates (again, Serbia and others) which have been allowed to grow up.
Each of these Patriarchates, however, welded itself as best it might to the local political establishment. The Mohammedan Turkish Sultanate used the Patriarchate of Constantinople to rule its Orthodox citizens, but identification with the Turk was not something easy to stomach!
The various Patriarchates in the East spent a great deal (entirely too much) of their time and energy fighting their political masters' battles, often with each other. They developed an ideology which said, in effect: "The way WE do things is the only authentic one, received unchanged from the Apostles". Which was (and is) not true, but useful as propaganda.
So here we had two different ecclesial systems, each striving for mundane political power. The results are interesting.
In the West, being the only Patriarchate (Carthage might have been another, but was destroyed by the Vandals in the 5th & 6th Century, then overrun by Mohammedans), Rome developed over time a unified structure of control. The various National Churches may have protested their independence, but were quite willing to copy Roman methods and Roman organization -- even Roman Liturgy.
The Roman ideal of governance was explicitly that of the Roman Empire -- an all-powerful central administration, controlling the chaotic and unbridled tendencies of an unenlightened mob. This view grew out of the political interactions between the Senatorial and Plebian classes in Republican Rome, and has persisted for about 2700 years now.
This lust for absolute power has colored both the political history of the Papacy and the pastoral practice of the Western Church -- including its stepchildren, the Protestants. And not in a good sense, either.
The idea of Papal supremacy impinged on the supremacy of the Bishop in his See, and the supremacy of the pastor in his parish, and extended itself down further, to the supremacy of the religious over the laity. It is a structure of control and command, with very little room for love and transcendance.
The mundane political results of this Roman idea of absolute control were horrifying. The Papal States before 1870 were ruled with an iron hand, secret police, and confiscatory taxation. To this day -- 106 years later -- the parts of Italy -- including Rome itself -- which were part of the Papal states are anti-clerical, and consistently vote Communist. The Roman Curia mismanaged and tyrannized their people, just as the Roman Senate and the Byzantine Emperors had.
I grew up under the perfection of this system in the 1950s. It was awe-inspiring and perfectly dreadful. Everything could be rigorously proven by Scholastic logic -- down to the individual level -- and one had only the most minuscule chance of obtaining heaven, and then only by observing every jot and tittle of the rules and obeying one's religious superiors. Rome had developed its own, home-grown version of Calvinism -- often called Jansenism.
Vatican II was called by Pope John of blessed memory, specifically to combat that cold, dead hand of Roman Imperial tyranny. It was to be a pastoral council -- calling the Church to a more open and loving approach to the People of God. No doctrinal changes -- nor any but the most superficial liturgical ones -- were contemplated. The Documents of the Council clearly reflect this,
It is interesting to see, however, how the Council has been interpreted. The entire structure of command and control, has been retained. Bishops and National Committees have more formal authority, and indeed often ignore Rome, but clerical elitism and superbia have not changed a whit.
Theology, the liturgy, and the artistic patrimony of the Western Church have been savaged, but Roman Imperial command and control has been preserved. It is this Imperial command -- and basic scorn for the People of God -- which led to the recent sexual scandals. At base, no one in the hierarchy cared -- as long as the pastors made their financial quotas, they could do as they liked with and to their people. Higher clerics were not immune from scandal -- just from exposure. The recently deposed bishop of Santa Rosa in California was not the only bishop carrying on homosexual relations with his clergy. (If is was with a WOMAN, for God's sake, great scandal would ensue -- but men? That's not really the same, after all.)
The results of the "Spirit of Vatican II" has been a clericus which, by and large, no longer believes what the Church has taught is the Christian religion, and cynically manipulates the laity. The laity are educated now, and not intimidated -- they have been voting with their feet -- and exercising the veto of the pocketbook. (A dollar a week in the basket, for a family of 3 or 4, making $50k+ a year).
=====================
There is a story told by the Orthodox in the US:
"How do you know two bishops are truly Orthodox?"
"Easy -- when they meet, they first kiss each others' shoulders, then they excommunicate each other."
Orthodox hierarchs spend more time bickering and exercising Eastern Roman Imperial pretensions than they should. Beautiful liturgies are one thing -- pomp and circumstance are quite another.
Another symptom of the Phyletism (Ethno-centrism) that afflicts the Orthodox is lack of ability to work together. Central authority and widespread missionary Orders in the West have allowed concentration of people and money resurces on a worldwide scale -- to the point where there are 5 Roman Catholics for every 1 Orthodox. The people of the various ethnic churches nowadays feel that they are all one Church, but the idea has not percolated up the hierarchy as yet.
===========================
The point of this whole Jeremiad is that the assumptions about power inherited from the Roman Empire simply do not work in this day and age. The verities of the Faith certainly work, and are as relevant now as they were in the 1st Century A.D., but the way we structure the Institutional Church, and the way we look at the People of God need to change.
The laity is increasingly well-educated, and unwilling to be dictated to. I have found it useful -- and a lot less work (tyranny is a hard job) -- to talk to peoples' good sense, to explain what the Church teaches, and invite them to join the hosts of the faithful and joyful worshippers, rather than try to herd or compel them.
Let us then resolve to give Imperial Roman ideas of religious tyranny the decent burial they so richly deserve.
posted by Sam'l B. at
8:59 PM
0 Comments
