Papacy Imperiled -Will Brady
I wish Erasmus was a rapper--he'd have written some of the most savage diss tracks in the Middle Ages. "Julius Excluded from Heaven" was hilariously brutal... His points about hypocrisy and a complete disregard for the Christian life within the highest ranks of the Church are clear. We could all go on and on about that, but I'm going to go with something I find even more interesting: Erasmus' background. It was either Olsen in class or the foreword to one of the handouts that mentioned this, but Erasmus wasn't a Protestant reformer; he was a staunch Catholic criticizing the Catholics. He's not afraid to take a Catholic stance on the Papacy by declaring Peter to be the first pope in "Julius Excluded from Heaven," but he's more than willing to satirize Julius as the most corrupt and arrogant of pagans. And yet according to Catholic doctrine, the pope does reign supreme over the Church (or did at the time, the Catholics keep revising and adding things and I can't keep it all straight). So in criticizing Julius, would Erasmus be criticizing the Church? Does Erasmus even believe the Papacy possesses power?
I mean, he seems to believe so to a degree, when he describes Peter as the pope--but he makes it clear through Peter's words that the Papacy exists to be a servant, not a leader. Christ is the head of the Church, as Erasmus points out. I'm very curious, then, to know what he thought about most of the Catholic Church's traditions and doctrines which were brought about by papal bull. Are all of them bad, in his eyes? Only the ones established by corrupt popes like Julius? What would Erasmus say about the doctrines of papal infallibility or the immaculate conception and ascension of Mary established in the 1800s and 1900s? Or paedobaptism to cleanse original sin without a confession of faith in Christ? Purgatory and indulgences? The Catholics have a lot of doctrine which came about through authorities outside the Bible--can Erasmus question the authority of one pope and not question the authority of all others?
He mentions towards the end of "Julius Excluded from Heaven" that Julius might not actually be a legitimate pope because he didn't live according to the Bible. He went outside the bounds of the Bible, so he wasn't legitimate. If that is the precedent, then what about the other church fathers who established certain doctrines that have little to no basis in Scripture--are they not also outside the bounds of the Bible, and therefore not legitimate? Is this a criticism Erasmus can make without ripping the foundation out from under his own faith?
P.S. I commented on Zane and Moriah’s posts.
I mean, he seems to believe so to a degree, when he describes Peter as the pope--but he makes it clear through Peter's words that the Papacy exists to be a servant, not a leader. Christ is the head of the Church, as Erasmus points out. I'm very curious, then, to know what he thought about most of the Catholic Church's traditions and doctrines which were brought about by papal bull. Are all of them bad, in his eyes? Only the ones established by corrupt popes like Julius? What would Erasmus say about the doctrines of papal infallibility or the immaculate conception and ascension of Mary established in the 1800s and 1900s? Or paedobaptism to cleanse original sin without a confession of faith in Christ? Purgatory and indulgences? The Catholics have a lot of doctrine which came about through authorities outside the Bible--can Erasmus question the authority of one pope and not question the authority of all others?
He mentions towards the end of "Julius Excluded from Heaven" that Julius might not actually be a legitimate pope because he didn't live according to the Bible. He went outside the bounds of the Bible, so he wasn't legitimate. If that is the precedent, then what about the other church fathers who established certain doctrines that have little to no basis in Scripture--are they not also outside the bounds of the Bible, and therefore not legitimate? Is this a criticism Erasmus can make without ripping the foundation out from under his own faith?
P.S. I commented on Zane and Moriah’s posts.
For me, the story of Julius being excluded from heaven more hit home of modern Christianity than struck me as humorous. I mean, some of, if not most of, the points that were made can apply to a lot of Christians in our world today. It also made me want to take a look at my own life to refine it. I see what you're saying with the questioning of doctrine, although I almost think the effect that he was going for was a more personal one, although large scale is important as well.
ReplyDeleteI find it fascinating that, even though Erasmus wrote such scathing satires of the Catholic Church, he was still a devoted Catholic himself. He was alive at the time of the Protestant Reformation yet he didn't become a protestant. I think that shows that he still did believe in a lot of the doctrines of the Catholic Church despite its corruption. He may not have agreed with everything but, by and large, he was a catholic.
ReplyDeleteI feel like while reading satire we forget its satire and think its just comedy. There's a large difference. Erasmus' definition of what a pope should be seems quite harsh and the fact that he glosses over or laughs at the evil being done in the church is wrong. while there is some truth to this i would have to say its not completely right. While Erasmus brings up these issues in a humorous way hes trying to make a point. also, if being outside of biblical terms is too strict then perhaps your view is too lenient. while the bible may not cover some topics as thoroughly as it is sometimes needed, popes should always be based in scripture.
ReplyDelete