| (Copyright 05-12-2025) by Eddie Hyatt (Grapevine, Texas) |
|---|
| Tracing the Roots of the Pomp and Ceremony Surrounding the Choosing of a New Pope  The world seemed mesmerized with the magnificent pomp and ceremony surrounding the announcement of Cardinal Robert Prevost as the next pope. In the excitement of it all, Catholic news journalists found themselves declaring religious dogma rather than objectively reporting the news. One Fox News reporter, for example, could not contain his excitement, and gushed forth calling the new pope, “the direct descendant of Saint Peter.” There is, of course, no biblical basis for such pomp and ceremony, nor for the pope being the successor of Peter. Jesus spoke against the use of special outward clothing and titles for self-promotion. He warned Peter and the other apostles, But you, do not be called “Rabbi”: for One is your teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your “father;” for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called “teachers;” for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant (Matthew 23:8-11). In the New Testament, we find no sign of hierarchy in the leadership of the church. Words that carried connotations of authority such as archon (ruler), timē (rank), and despot (master) are used of Jewish and secular rulers but are glaringly missing in regard to Christian leaders. Instead, the word diakonos is used for Christian leaders and it is a word that means “servant” and carries no connotations of status, rank or authority. This means that the pomp and pageantry of the modern Roman Catholic Church cannot be traced to Jesus and the New Testament, but to Constantine and imperial Rome. The Source of the Pomp and Pageantry Surrounding the Pope When the Roman emperor, Constantine, converted to Christianity in 312, he began bestowing special favors on the Christians. He built magnificent buildings for their gatherings and made elevated throne-like seating for the bishops. He also began funding the salaries of the bishops. The church obviously had an impact on the emperor, but the emperor seems to have had an even greater impact on the church. Constantine convened, at government expense, a church council that became known as the Council of Nicaea. Although he had not been baptized, Constantine opened this council and intervened in the discussions of the bishops at certain points. The most widely read Roman Catholic theologian in the world today, the late Dr. Hans Kung, wrote, Constantine used this first council not least to adapt the church organization to the state organization. The church provinces were to correspond to the imperial provinces, each with a metropolitan and a provincial synod. In other words, the empire now had its imperial church (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 50-51). This was the Romanizing of Christianity. The bishop of Rome now had special status afforded to him by the emperor. This status would be greatly increased when, in 330, Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to the town of Byzantine located in present day Turkey. Constantine renamed the town Constantinople, after himself. It is today known as Istanbul. The power vacuum left in Rome by the removal of all the governmental apparatus from Rome to Byzantine was filled by the bishop of Rome who began to make his claim that he was the successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, and the head of all Christendom. The Fabled “Donation of Constantine” In the eighth century a fable began to be used by the popes and the Roman Church that supported and enhanced those claims. This fable, known as “The Donation of Constantine,” is now recognized as a myth by both Catholic and Protestant historians. Nonetheless, it served its purpose in infusing the papacy with imperial pomp and authority. According to this fable, Constantine, the persecutor of Christians, was smitten with leprosy and then healed by Pope Silvester who also converted him and baptized him. When Constantine later decided to move the capital to Constantinople without papal approval, he soon realized his sin and came and prostrated himself before Pope Silvester. When his sin was forgiven, he then moved the capital to Constantinople with the pope’s consent. According to this myth, before departing, Constantine bestowed on Silvester the right to wear the Roman imperial insignia and robes and bequeathed to him Rome and all the provinces and cities in Italy and the western regions. In other words, Constantine bestowed on the Roman bishop a kingly royalty and authority like that of an emperor over all the cities and churches of the West. Popes latched on to this fable and it became the basis for the papal throne and the pope’s royal insignia, garments, entourage and crown. It became the basis for popes exercising civil as well as spiritual authority. In addition, the story implied that Constantine had received his authority for establishing the Byzantine empire of the East from the bishop of Rome. This was used by later popes to claim universal authority over all churches everywhere, even those of Byzantine. Found to be False It was not until the 15th century that this story was challenged by the Catholic official and historian, Lorenzo Valla. The Donation of Constantine is now widely recognized, even by Catholic historians, as fictitious. Nonetheless, it served its purpose in providing a powerful argument for the medieval popes to further their claims of universal preeminence and authority. Indeed, after Constantine, the Romanizing of the church continued, leading the historian, Rudolph Sohm, to say, “The constitution of the Church was, in the main, modeled on the organization of the Empire.”And the late Cardinal Leon Joseph Suenens admitted, When I was young the Church was presented to us as a hierarchical society: it was described as “juridically perfect,” having within itself all the powers necessary to insure and promote its own existence. This view reflected an image of the Church which was closely modeled on civil, and even military, society (Hyatt, Infallible Pope: Key to Unity or Source of Division, 29). After Constantine, the bishops were generally looked upon as the successors of the apostles and the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter, the chief of the apostles. They began dressing in imperial regalia, surrounded by Romish pomp and ceremony. This was based, not on Scripture, but on Roman imperial custom and law. Kung has commented on this, saying, Bishops were accorded secular titles, insignia and privileges which up to then had been reserved for the emperor or high officials: candles, incense, a throne, shoes, the maniple, the pallium and so on (Hyatt, Apostolic Leadership, 49-50). So, the grandiose ritual and ceremony that we have observed in the choosing of a new pope is clearly rooted in ancient, imperial Rome, not in Jesus and the New Testament. Consider Ourselves But before we become too critical, we must come down off our own religious thrones and consider to what degree we have been impacted by modern culture. To what degree are we preaching an “Americanized” Gospel that has more in common with Hollywood and Wall Street than with Jesus and the New Testament? There is plenty of room for repentance in Protestantism as well as Catholicism. Let us, therefore, pray for the new pope and pray that during the next decade there will be a return to Jesus and the New Testament throughout the universal church. We have the promise of Joel 2:28, repeated by Peter in Acts 2:17, And it shall come to pass in the last days,” says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams, and on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out of My Spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy. ——————————————————————————– Reprinted with permission from: God’s Word to Women http://www.godswordtowomen.org/ ——————————————————————————– |
Views: 1