2009-06-29 23:35Who is the Protestant Pope?I have recently been looking over some interesting Wikipedia articles which deal with questions such as “When did certain wars actually end?” and “Who is the real monarch of England?” They seem to present what I call “Revisionist Present Realities” or RPRs, where the events of the past are reinterpreted in a revisionist light, and lead to unorthodox views of the present reality. I have thus been inspired to document my own RPR dealing with the history of the Christian Church. Despite the fact that the very term “protestant Pope” is contradictory to some (and unthinkable to others), I go in search of the identity of this mythical character, and, in a dramatic break with tradition, actually succeed in finding him. I’ll give you a clue: it’s probably not who you think it is, as I don’t suppose he even realises himself that he fits this description. OutlineFirstly I should define what a pope is. There are in fact several religious positions with that name, and some of these positions have multiple claimants, regarded as anti-popes. Starting from the traditional Roman Catholic definition of “pope”, the role I am describing is that of the bishop of Rome, the “first amongst equals” of bishops in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, with a primacy of honour and reverence, though not of jurisdiction or personal infallibility. Naturally I apply the lemma from my previous blog post to determine an interpretation of the phrase “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, and as that lemma is implicitly parameterised based on a set of doctrinal viewpoints, I will specify here that I am presenting a protestant view. I am not claiming this is a mainstream or even a correct protestant view, but I think it overlaps with the views of protestants enough to at least be interesting. So, what I intend to do is go over the history of Christianity following the algorithm suggested by the lemma to select a Church which is apostolically succeeded and has maintained communion with the apostles (and their protestant doctrine) while schismatic Churches have split from it along the way. By carrying this on up to the present day, I can then give an idea of who is currently in this Church, and of those people I can state who fits the definition of “pope” as explained above. Timeline
Note: Cranmer’s Court considered the King’s matter and pronounced the King’s marriage to have been void from the beginning on the grounds that the Pope did not possess the powers of dispensation that he had used to allow Henry to marry Catherine. While Cranmer was correct on theological grounds that no pope is able to grant a dispensation that allows someone to sin, it was not a sin for Henry to marry Catherine and so no dispensation was needed. Thus the marriage was legal and should not have been annulled. RevealThe hints are there in the timeline, that there is an Anglican congregation in Rome, and this congregation is overseen by the bishop whose diocese is mainland Europe. As the Anglican Church is an apostolic Church in communion with the Church that is the successor to the Roman Catholic Church when it split with Luther, then the bishop of this diocese is the rightful bishop of Rome. So who is this mysterious figure? He is the Right Reverend Doctor Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe. I don’t suppose he is aware that he is the protestant pope, although he has written a book called “English Religious Traditions and the Genius of Anglicanism” so perhaps he would at least understand the argument I am putting forward. I’m sure he’s very familiar with the Thirty-Nine Articles, which I may appear to be over-emphasising in the timeline, but it is worth pointing out that Article XIX says in part “As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.” The Church of England, it could be said, thinks of itself as a natural descendant of the Church of Rome, which, if taken as true, would produce the same answer to the question that is the title of this post, without the use of my earlier lemma, although I feel that the lemma is mathematically more appealing at least. So, if I bumped into him while he was at his Bishop’s Lodge in Sussex, or his cathedral in Gibraltar, or his pro-cathedral in Malta or Belgium, what would he say if I told him about this theory? |
QuicksearchCategoriesSyndicate This BlogBlog Administration |
The idea that the Pope should be able to dispense with rules for people in one country is just the sort of abuse of power that the early Protestants were trying to prevent, and I think it would be reasonable for a Protestant today to treat the so-called Pope’s policy as allowing any Christian anywhere to eat flesh meat on those days.
Tracked: Apr 30, 03:38