Are You, Am I, “Popish”?

The solemn declaration of papal infallibility by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) took place 150 years ago this week, on July 18, 1870.

The Meaning of Papal Infallibility

In the history of the RCC, there have been 21 “ecumenical councils,” the first being the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the last one was the Second Vatican Council in 1962~65.

Dictionary.com explains that the ecumenical councils of the RCC are “convoked and presided over by the pope and composed of cardinals, bishops, and certain other prelates whose decrees, when confirmed by the pope, become binding.”

The 20^th ecumenical council of the RCC was held in 1869~70, and the most important decision made in that solemn meeting was about papal infallibility.

Succinctly, the doctrine of papal infallibility means that when the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” (from the papal chair) on matters of faith and morals, by the power of the Holy Spirit that pronouncement is unfailingly without error.

Since that time, the only example of an ex cathedra decree took place in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.

The Rejection of Papal Infallibility

It goes without saying, perhaps, that there has been universal rejection of the doctrine of papal infallibility by Protestants. In some circles, the response to the Catholic assertion of infallibility led to an emphasis on the inerrancy of the Bible, dubbed the “paper Pope” by some.

But there has also been some opposition within the Roman Catholic Church. One hundred years after the declaration of papal infallibility at Vatican I, Hans Küng wrote a book entitled Infallible? An Inquiry (published in 1971).

Several years later, in 1979, Küng was stripped of his license to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian, although he was able to continue teaching as a tenured professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen until his retirement in 1996.

The one example of the use of papal infallibility, the bodily taking up of Mary, the mother of Jesus, into Heaven at the end of her earthly life, tends to strengthen the non-Catholic rejection of the dogma.

Still, papal infallibility remains a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Tendency toward “Popishness”

“Popish” is an offensive term that has from time to time been used by non-Catholics to refer derisively to the Roman Catholic Church.

But it is also sometimes used in a derogatory sense meaning to act or speak in a manner similar to the pope—a usage that is based on the common misunderstanding of the meaning of papal infallibility, that is, thinking the Pope is always right in whatever he says.

Some of us have strong ideas or beliefs that we think are absolutely right. Holding on to those ideas or beliefs despite strong counterarguments can cause one to be thought of or criticized as being “popish.”

There is nothing wrong with having strong ideas/beliefs, though. Michael Polanyi, one of my favorite philosophers, in his magnum opus Personal Knowledge (1958) referred to what he called “heuristic passion,” which then is turned into “persuasive passion.”

But Polanyi’s main emphasis is that all knowledge is “personal knowledge.” Consequently, we must always admit the possibility that we might be wrong.

We can avoid being “popish” if we keep in mind the paradoxical situation we are in: because of our heuristic passion we often are certain we are right and seek by persuasive passion to convince others of the truth we have embraced; nevertheless, we must acknowledge that, indeed, we might be wrong.

That’s how you, and I, can keep from being “popish.”

Is There One Christian Story?

I received some significant responses to my blog entry for August 11, and one "thinking friend" raised questions about two issues so important I feel I must respond to them--to one in this post and to the other later.

The first issue is concerning the great diversity within Christianity. Is, as my respondent wrote, Christianity so diverse with so many different interpretations that, "just like other traditions," Christianity has many stories rather than being a story? Thus, "rather than our strength being in a common, singular story, our strength may be in the multiple 'stories' understood by the various Christian traditions, denominations, sects, etc."

Certainly, there is no question that there is great diversity within Christianity. There are multiple differences between various forms of the faith now and there are great differences between the bulk of Christians now and Christians of one hundred, five hundred, one thousand, or fifteen hundred years ago--to say nothing of the differences between Christians now and those of the early Church.

But, are there multiple stories? Or is there only a great variety in the way one central story is understood, explained, and followed? In spite of all the diversity, I am firmly convinced that there is, in fact, a central Christian story. Moreover, it is belief in and commitment to that story that makes one a Christian, in the sense of being a Christian believer. (There is and has been for a very long time "cultural Christians," people who are Christians because of their birth and cultural connections; the multitude of people like that are to be distinguished from those who are Christian believers, that is, people who have committed their lives to the lordship of Jesus Christ and are seeking to live accordingly.)

The Bible, for all its diversity, is primarily one overarching story much more than a book of teachings, of "eternal truths." The classic Christian creeds have been used and are used today by millions of Christians. Interpretations of the creeds vary greatly, but there is allegiance to the centrality of the creeds as summaries of the Christian faith--of the one, central Christian story.

For the past three years I have taught one of the required theology courses at Rockhurst University in Kansas City. The textbook I have used is Hans Küng's massive "Christianity: Essence, History, Future" (1995). He writes about the six different Christian paradigms and the great differences between those six basic expressions of Christianity. But he continually emphasizes the commonality that is found in all types of Christianity in all eras.

I think Küng is entirely correct in his assertion about the essential commonality of Christianity. In spite of all the variance in the way it is interpreted and explained, there is, indeed, one overarching Christian story.