Last week Douthat reflected on what is becoming obvious — the change (at least in tone) in the papacy under Francis, though conclusive assessments are still premature. Douthat also argued that this change could be good for conservative Roman Catholics:
. . . to the extent that conservative Catholics in the United States find themselves actively disagreeing with Pope Francis’s emphases, whether on political issues or matters internal to the church or both, it might help cure them/us of the recurring Catholic temptation toward papolatry.
This temptation was sharpened for many Catholics by John Paul II’s charisma and Cold War statesmanship and then Benedict’s distinctive intellectual gifts, and by their common role as ecumenical rallying points for orthodox belief in an age of heresy. But if the tendency is understandable, it’s also problematic, because the only thing that Catholics are supposed to rely on the papacy for is the protection of the deposit of faith, and on every other front — renewal, governance, holiness — it’s extremely important for believers to keep their expectations low.
At various points during the last two pontificates, of course, it’s been liberal and heterodox Catholics who have consoled themselves with precisely this perspective, and with the belief that (as the writer Paul Elie put it, in an Atlantic article on the election of Joseph Ratzinger) “much of what is best in the Catholic tradition has arisen in the shadow of an essentially negative papacy.” But conservative Catholics need not agree with the liberal theological program to recognize that there is truth to the underlying insight. The papal office has been occupied by many more incompetents than geniuses, and there’s a reason why so few occupants of the chair of Peter show up in the litany of the saints. Or at least until so few until now — and here I agree absolutely with this point from Michael Brendan Dougherty, in a piece about the overlooked aspects of Francis’s now-famous post-Brazil interview:
For one thing, Pope Francis not only touted the impending canonizations of Pope John XIII and Pope John Paul II, but also the “causes” of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul I. Are we seriously to believe that every recent pope was a saint, even when the church has experienced unbelievable contraction and criminal scandal under their pontificates? Seems like the Church needs an “Advocatus Diaboli” again to point out the faults of candidates for sainthood …
So popes are not all saints, and the pope isn’t identical with the church — and it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for conservative Catholics to reckon with this fact. Maybe this pontificate won’t be the time for that reckoning. But if the historical record is indicative, it won’t be permanently delayed.
Something that may also help conservative Roman Catholics find separation from the audacity of papal authority is Francis Oakley’s book, The Conciliarist Tradition (2003). That Douthat does not appeal to conciliarism, as if papalism is the only game in town, confirms Oakley’s thesis that conciliarism has been forgotten and that high-papalism is presumed to be the traditional view:
. . . it has been usual to concede that tattered remnants of that conciliar ecclesiology were to be found caught up in those provicincal, obscurely subversive, and usually statist ideologies that have gone down in history as Gallicanism, Richerism, Febronianism, and Josephinism. But those disparate, occluding, and (usually) ninetenth-century labels have themselves served, in fact, to conceal from us the prominence, tenacity, wide geographic spread, and essential continuity of that age-old tradition of conciliarist constitutionalism which, for long centuries, competed stubbornly for the allegiance of Catholics with the high-papalist or ultramontane vision of things so powerfully entrenched in Italy and at Rome. If the latter is so much more familiar to us today, it is so because it was destined after 1870 to become identified with Roman Catholic orthodoxy itself. And it is only, one cannot help suspecting, our very familiarity with that papalist outcome that has contrived to persuade us of the necessity of the process.
In the past, historians concerned with the conciliar movement clearly felt obliged to explain how it could be that the seeds of such a consitutionalist ecclesiology could have contrived to germinate in the stonily monarchical soil of the Latin Catholic Church. But in thus framing the issue, or so I will be suggesting, they were picking up the conceptual stick at the wrong end. Given the depth of its roots in the ecclesiological consciousness of Latin Christendom and the strength with which it endured on into the modern era and right across norther Europe, the real question for the historian at least may rather be how and why that constitutionalist ecclesiology perished and, in so doing, left so very little trace on our historical consciousness. For perish it certainly did . . . Vatican I’s definitions of papal primacy and infallibility had seemed to leave Catholic historians with little choice but to treat the concilar movement as nothing more than a revolutionary moment in the life of the Church, and Catholic theologians with no alternative but to regard the conciliar theory as a dead issue, an ecclesiological fossil, something lodged deep in the lower carboniferous of the dogmatic geology. (16-17)
Perhaps with folks like Jason and the Callers in mind, Oakley wrote this:
. . . . Theologians of non-historical bent may doubtless be content to explain why this had necessarily to be so. Historians on the other hand, may be forgiven for wanting to rescue from the shadows and return to the bright lights of centre stage the memory of a tradition of thought powerful enough, after all, to have endured in the Catholic consciousness for half a millennium and more. (18-19)
So when Jason and the Callers embraced the papacy, they believed they were only doing what Roman Catholics had always done. Turns out that conciliarism (especially if you rummage around in the Eastern Church) has deeper historical roots than papalism. In which case, Jason and the Callers confirm Oakley’s point about the forgetfulness of traditionalist Roman Catholics about tradition.
Old Life 
Darryl,
The question-begging premise in this argument is the second premise, i.e. that conciliarism “has deeper historical roots than papalism.” Neither you nor Oakley has established the truth of that claim. On the contrary, a careful study of history shows that conciliarism (as formulated in the 14th and 15th centuries) was a deviation from the ancient tradition.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan,
Can you substantiate your claim that conciliarism was a deviation?
Nice to see you here,
Andrew
LikeLike
Douthat – But if the tendency is understandable, it’s also problematic, because the only thing that Catholics are supposed to rely on the papacy for is the protection of the deposit of faith, and on every other front — renewal, governance, holiness — it’s extremely important for believers to keep their expectations low.
Erik – In other words, the man is no Neocalvinist super minister.
LikeLike
And then there’s the Conciliarism (private judgment?) of Jason:
http://literatecomments.com/2013/07/29/jason-stellman-stuff-i-dont-like-that-much-catholicism-edition/
LikeLike
Bryan; On the contrary, a careful study of history shows that conciliarism (as formulated in the 14th and 15th centuries) was a deviation from the ancient tradition.
Me: This actually should be an interesting discussion Bryan, as long as your QB flag isn’t based on ‘reading’ the history per a prior faith commitment of continuity and coherence. Otherwise, here comes the yellow bean bag back at you.
LikeLike
Bryan, actually, every polemicist against Protestant claims about biblical authority, cites the councils of the early church as forming the canon. They don’t argue that the pope called those councils. Somehow, in fact, the ecumenical councils convened without the papacy’s presence.
And you cite the early church fathers?
LikeLike
Sean, you really think Bryan has the chutzpah to challenge Oakley? Then again, there may be a reason for your assessment that CTC sounds fundamentalist. Scholarly credentials. Who needs ’em? (And to think Oakley remained a phenomenal scholar despite a detour as academic administrator — un-frigging-believable!)
LikeLike
Bryan’s got an academic gig now, apparently:
About Dr. Bryan Cross
Dr. Bryan Cross was raised as a Pentecostal Christian then became a Reformed Protestant shortly after completing his bachelor’s degree in cellular and molecular biology at the University of Michigan. He then received an M.Div. from Covenant Theological Seminary. In 2003 he and his wife and two daughters became Anglican. On October 8, 2006, he and his family were received into full communion with the Catholic Church. He recently received a PhD in philosophy from Saint Louis University and began a tenure track position as Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Mount Mercy University. Follow Bryan at his personal blog, Principium Unitatis, and at CalledToCommunion.com.
I don’t find any mention of him on the Mount Mercy (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) site, though. Is there another Mount Mercy?
LikeLike
Darryl, one can dream. I’d love to see it. I’m beginning to think the skepticism hat really belongs on Bryan’s head. I can’t reconcile imago Dei consideration with thomistic ‘wounded’ nature and the need for an infallible magisterium. Who’s the real skeptic in these conversations that one needs to check Rom 2 Imago Dei culpability at the door for; ‘I believe what the church believes’. Seems awfully skeptical of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, words on a page, and the inscripturated apostolic tradition. Basically they’ve exchanged biblicism(fundamentalist) for ecclesialism(CtC RC). Bryan needed Sister Finkbinder and Fr. Tarlizzo growing up. Bryan guts imago Dei ‘conscience’ of it’s capacity and responsibility, and hides behind the ‘pope’.
So yeah, I’d like to see this discussion between he and Oakley. Shoot I just want to see him engage you on the historical merits.
LikeLike
“a detour as academic administrator ”
Admit it, it was all good (for you).
And the library also.
the person you are today….
LikeLike
It looks like both Hart & Cross are good professors. Hart:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1716965
LikeLike
And Cross:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=276935
LikeLike
@Erik If the philosophy department at Mt. Mercy is anything like mine, it will be a few years before they get around to updating their webpage.
LikeLike
McMark, it certainly did give me an appreciation for administrators. I’m not one of those faculty who bitches about administration (just everything else).
LikeLike
Erik, I’m not easy?!? Just ask Cordelia. But I guess it shows I am an anti-nomian (compared to Cross).
Obviously, I didn’t have Doug in class.
LikeLike
Darryl, now all we need is one of your former students to become an OldLife regular. Whenever you show him/her who is boss around here, they can blame poor teaching. Or in moments of inspiration in the combox, then again, blame the teaching. That trick worked wonders with my High School philosophy teacher. I still can’t get him to give up Paul Tillich, that dear friend, but as in so many things, we press on..
That Oakley book looks like it’s worth diggung into more. I just may. Thanks for your blog.
LikeLike
Being a cat owner (of two cats that don’t like each other) is good preparation for being an administrator in higher education. I hope theological faculties are better than most, though.
A great book on academic politics (and so many other things) is Milton & Rose Friedman’s “Two Lucky People”. A great book on academics in general is Edward Shils’ “Portraits – A Gallery of Intellectuals”. Shils & Joseph Epstein were good friends.
LikeLike
“On the contrary, a careful study of history shows that conciliarism (as formulated in the 14th and 15th centuries) was a deviation from the ancient tradition.”
How about a reference to a historian who demonstrates that Oakley’s thesis is false. My historian friends take his work pretty seriously.
LikeLike
Anyone else noticed, how no one says ‘goodbye’ anymore? How rude.
We’re only left to conclude Bryan is so flummoxed by DG’s answer, that silence is the answer.
Come on, Bryan. Keep it going.
I’m with Sean – this conversation could be a good one. Bryan, now’s your chance. You got me to call out the name calling if it happens. If you want to talk with us, don’t let this opportunity pass you by.
Regards,
AB
LikeLike
PS Bryan, completely understand if you wish to bow out. I do that a lot on your turf, I realize sometimes those of us who care about topics like ecclessiology engage merely for selfish motives. I know I still owe you C2Cers some of my thoughts on perspicuity. Alas, I’m not an academic, just an officer in a smaller communion than yours. Of interest though in this thread’s topic was the wikipedia article on conciliarism. I had no idea vat 2 was just a pastoral meeting, or however the writer put it there. Must mean I’m worse than just a seperated brother. Anathema per Trent is probably more what you guys call us in your private meetings. Again, dont interact with me unless you want to, but you lost this thread. I work during the day, so I will always be delayed. Thanks for trying here, tho. Until next time.
LikeLike
AB, I have no reason to think that Bryan is not up to a discussion about conciliarism (though I don’t think many Protestant converts to Rome actually spend much time considering the period of RC history when the church had 3 rival popes and could only be downgraded to one by intervention from a council). What I have long suspected though is that Jason and the Callers can’t abide historical discussions. They want to go to the theology of divine office and won’t consider the less than noble bits of history. It’s hard for most believers to do that. Most want history to inspire, to show the right way. It never does that (nor does Ecclesiastes). What I would like to see from Bryan is how he incorporates history into his ecclesiology, or whether he can entertain the idea that papal supremacy is an accident of history, not the substance of Christianity.
LikeLike
Darryl, thanks. See, I say ‘goodbye.’ I appreciate you clearing that up for me. Take care.
LikeLike
Does anyone else notice that these former Protestants read history like Protestants read the Bible? It has perspicuity and it’s infallible, or at least their reading of it is. So the scriptures themselves become malleable but history outside of those pages cannot be doubted.
LikeLike
MM, a ding a ding. It’s also to be read in coherence with LATER(anachronistically) RC development of the deposit.
LikeLike
Douthat on the political conservatism of Jesus–pay the taxes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/opinion/sunday/douthat-return-of-the-jesus-wars.html?_r=0
LikeLike
I was just talking with Sweet Brown and she said “Ain’t nobody got time Douthat.”
LikeLike
Come on MM, let’s get up to speed.
History is Scripture performatively for the Called to Confusion bunch.
They even say so. Tradition is part of revelation.
(IOW I was going to say so last night, but you beat me to it.)
And neither Bryan nor Oakley has established the truth of the claim that the universal (negative) consent of the fathers was that the little papa was performatively da big papa.
Bryan’s schtick is like The Disciple of Veron. Their skepticism only goes one way and mention of the same only earns you the auto response of
paradigm mongeringquestionbegging/crabby.So maybe next time Jason and the Callers get fired from the gig, instead of the oldies but goodies routine from The Peace of Bryan, we could book Johnny Walker and the Red Labels for a change.
It would certainly be appreciated and probably a lot more coherent.
LikeLike
PS Darryl,
“What I would like to see from Bryan is how he incorporates history into his ecclesiology, or whether he can entertain the idea that papal supremacy is an accident of history, not the substance of Christianity.”
You and me both, bro.
Have a nice Lord’s day,
Andrew
LikeLike