Assessing the Papacy
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:53 pm
I recently read the observation, that the Roman Catholic hierarchy, headed by the pope, is the only institution which has survived from classical antiquity as a continually functioning organization. I suspect that some church organizations in the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic churches might be able to make the same claim. But, in any case, the catholic church and its hierarchy are among the longest lasting institutions in history.
So, what has the net effect of the papacy been on history, taking the papacy as separate from other catholic organizations? The pope, after all, has his own little country, and popes prior to the nineteenth century ruled considerably larger territories. The pope probably never had all that much influence as head of state, but he has had considerable influence as head of the catholic church.
For myself, I think you have to begin by noting that the main purpose of the papacy is to promulgate a theology which is questionable, to say the least--even many Christians don't support most of what the pope has preached and presented as infallible, at least since the middle of the eleventh century. There is also considerable evidence that, in many cases, the pope has done things that would increase his power and influence, regardless of the moral effects of his actions. At the same time, catholic organizations (not necessarily dependent on the pope) have carried out a lot of good humanitarian work.
All in all, I have a somewhat neutral view of the papacy. It wouldn't bother me if it ceased to exist, but it doesn't seem particularly harmful at this stage of history. Perhaps the papacy has a kind of virtue conferred on it by its longevity, in that it represents stability which isn't normally found elsewhere.
So, what has the net effect of the papacy been on history, taking the papacy as separate from other catholic organizations? The pope, after all, has his own little country, and popes prior to the nineteenth century ruled considerably larger territories. The pope probably never had all that much influence as head of state, but he has had considerable influence as head of the catholic church.
For myself, I think you have to begin by noting that the main purpose of the papacy is to promulgate a theology which is questionable, to say the least--even many Christians don't support most of what the pope has preached and presented as infallible, at least since the middle of the eleventh century. There is also considerable evidence that, in many cases, the pope has done things that would increase his power and influence, regardless of the moral effects of his actions. At the same time, catholic organizations (not necessarily dependent on the pope) have carried out a lot of good humanitarian work.
All in all, I have a somewhat neutral view of the papacy. It wouldn't bother me if it ceased to exist, but it doesn't seem particularly harmful at this stage of history. Perhaps the papacy has a kind of virtue conferred on it by its longevity, in that it represents stability which isn't normally found elsewhere.
