Pope-u-larity. . .

Since I was not alive in the 1900 years past, I cannot say whether or not the pope was as pivotal to Rome then as it certainly is today.  In fact, for a Lutheran the problem of the papacy is magnified by the almost godlike character applied to those who sit upon the throne in the Vatican.  As a Lutheran, I am certainly happy to grant the authority of this man as Bishop of Rome and, as we have repeatedly said, accept him as a spokesman for Christianity and leader of all in that sense, the petrocentrism of Rome is all or nothing.  Yes, there were some grumbles about the legitimacy of Francis when the man they wanted was in retirement.  I could have joined them since at least Benedict was orthodox and knew something of Lutheranism.  Even then the centrality of the papal office was apparent with an occupant most serious minded Christians did not like or respect.  They held their noses and prayed for him and paid attention to him because in the Roman Church he was and this new pope is the only game in town.

The modern papacy changed when, one hundred fifty-five years ago, the newly formed nation of Italy proclaimed victory and Pope Pius IX stayed behind the walls of the Vatican.  People thought then that the papacy was finished.  Little did they know.  From Vatican I on, the papacy became larger than life.  In the wake of Vatican II, then Pope Paul VI was able to flaunt what was written by the Council and effect his  (or those of his advisors)  radical changes in just about everything starting with the Mass.  The previous Leo was the main beneficiary of Vatican I and the current Leo seems to have learned a thing or two from his mentor.  Good popes and bad ones have come along and most folks might think of him as Americans think of those in Washington -- those who do less are better than those who try to do more.  The problem of the papacy is magnified as he and his office are expanded until they have sucked all the air out of nearly every room.

All politics is local.  That is what Rome seems to have forgotten.  Take, for example, the uproar by Bishop Martin of Charlotte.  He is the personification of what is wrong with Rome on a global scale.  He thinks everything is about him -- from his liturgical preferences to nearly everything else.  That is certainly what Francis thought.  As an upswing, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI were too busy with theology to mandate that everyone had to be them but Paul VI and Francis let it go to their heads.  Whatever affection outside of Rome for the likes of JPII or BXVI withered in the face of Francis confusing confession and false humility that hid his domineering side.  If the Pope is all there is to Rome, then Rome is in bigger trouble than ever.  For all the talk of 1.45 Billion people, count the noses of those at Mass on a given Sunday and you have a better gauge of who and what Rome is.  You can have the best Pope in the world but if the local congregations are in rough shape, what does it matter?  Lutherans need to pay attention to this lest we invest savior into the job description of those who lead us as well.

I truly do hope that Leo will undo what damage Francis did but I also hope he will stay off the hot mic on the airplane, give less interviews to reporters, and spend less time trying to be me than Francis did.  The more that Rome becomes synonymous with the Pope and the Pope with Rome, the greater the problems within Rome and for ecumenism in general.  I suspect that most folks outside of Rome are like me.  We long for an orthodox, pious, well-spoken, patient, and faithful leader of the Vatican.  It helps us who contend for the faith in our own neck of the woods.  But none of us needs a pope-u-larity contest winner or a petrocentristic church in Rome.  Not even Lutherans.