Feeding the Papal Trump-like ego. . .

I have had occasion to listen to a recent debate between Elijah Yasi and the Eastern Orthodox apologist Alex Sorin over the claims of the papacy and the witness of the early fathers.  The gist of it all is signaled in the opening salvo by Alex Sorin who claims that much of what was said of Rome and popes was also said about other major sees and their occupants was “empty honorifics.” I cannot resist the way that some seem to feel the need to stroke the ego of Donald Trump with the same kind of empty honorifics that Alex Sorin says were employed to stroke the Roman ego.  As a Lutheran I would love if such a thing could be proven.

Anyway, Alex Sorin has rather boldly said that, “for almost every quote [in the early Church] exalting Rome, there’s a corresponding quote to other major Sees.”  Let me unpack that.  In other words, for every church father or church council that seems to interpret Matthew 16, John 21, and Luke 22 as referencing St. Peter and his successors in Rome, you can find the same said about Antioch or Jerusalem or some other ancient see and its leaders.  So what Rome claims to apply to them exclusively until the end of time, there is the same kind of language applying to some other see or leader.  If it were true, this would kind of prove the Lutheran claim (as well as the Orthodox one) that all of the ancient councils and fathers were merely stroking an ego and not insisting that Rome had a unique claim to primacy.  This would imply that their words were mere flowery flattering language that was, for all intents and purposes, without any real meaning at all.  As one commentator put it, if everyone is the supreme and divinely instituted head of the Church, then no one really is.  It would certainly help the idea of a conciliar structure over a papal one.

As much as I would like to believe this, I am not really convinced that this is the case.  I certainly do believe that the claims of Roman exclusivity and the papacy are overblown by Rome and that these developed over time and were not there or even hidden there from the beginning and yet I do not quite believe that every ancient see and its bishops were spoken of in exactly the same way.  It is pretty clear that Rome became the first among equals in a way that other ancient sees did not.  That said, as a Lutheran I would emphasize the equals part more than Rome every would.  

Although it is not an uncommon thing to say, Rome today is centered in the papacy far more and very different from previous eras in history.  Francis spoke a good line about synodality but never actually practiced it and appeared to this Lutheran to be far more the dictator who neither sought nor paid much attention to the bishops or the cardinals who were supposed to advise him.  Vatican I and the aftermath of Vatican II have mightily elevated the papacy to the point where bishops have become mere lackeys of the pope rather than occupants of an office with some authority.  Those who have used the authority they have today have used it mostly to be an irritant to everything traditional in doctrine, worship, and practice rather than to be the guardians over the flock in their care (a certain Bishop Martin of Charlotte seems to be a fair example of the kind I am talking about).  It is this that I wish more would focus upon today.  Bishops have become more functionaries of the pope and administrators than teachers and shepherds.  Popes the same except to the ninth power.  

Having a bishop is no guarantee of orthodox belief or practice.  Only an idiot says otherwise.  But neither is not having a bishop a guarantee of anything (except perhaps disdain for apostolic custom and Biblical order).  Having a pope is no guarantee of orthodox belief or practice either.  Francis is our most recent teacher of this truism.  Yet again, not having a pope does not guarantee more orthodoxy either.  My own longing is not for a pope who might be a convenient symbol for Christianity and the Church but for real teaching bishops who act truly as shepherds and who value orthodoxy not as a hindrance or constraint but the pure freedom that the Church was meant to enjoy.  At this point, those arguing for or against Roman primacy or the papacy might at least admit that Christianity continues to bleed because we have had too few of those kind of leaders and suffer the continued want for men of courage and integrity and a catholic identity, rooted in Scripture and living tradition that has and always will surround it.  So it seems to me that all the effort put into trying to prove or disprove Roman primacy and the papacy might be better spent raising up better than administrators but true bishops and shepherds to oversee the flock of God.