The job at hand wasn’t to critique the phenomenon itself - from any point of view, whether Latin or Orthodox - but to trace its history in the western Church as a thread through the history of western Europe. I’m not qualified to make theological investigations.
Exactly, and much of what is written by these and other thinkers is about the history of the phenomenon. Orthodox take the Papacy very seriously, which I have found most Western thinkers (Roman Catholic and Protestant and secular) to be only mildly aware of, if that. But a huge corpus about the Papacy pre-1054 exists that could inform any history about the trajectory of papolotry. Here's a good one if you're not familiar with it. https://svspress.com/christian-east-and-the-rise-of-the-papacy-the/
And Fr. Cyril Hovorun. You can draw inferences for your study on his pre-Nicea work, as here: (99+) Arles, Nicea, and Constantine https://share.google/Xu1msyIxBueRyZ4Rj
And because you are aware that even the existence of a thing called the "Early Modern Period" is almost completely unknown to the general reading public, which has created a critical gap in that public's ability to understand what's going on today. How many Anglos - American, Canadian, British, Australian - Catholics know the first thing about the 30 Years War and its immense impact on the Church? The late 16th and 17th century was a critical moment in creating the reality we all now, unfortunately, have to live in today, the moment when Europe definitively abandoned an entire way of thinking, behaving and governing, and adopted something new.
Popes of the 1st millennium were more modest in their claims of primacy. It seems to me that papalotry really started with the disputes between Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII.
I didn’t get into the Investiture Controversy since the piece was intended to cover more broadly what was happening over 300 years starting in the 17th century. But there’s definitely a series there too.
Funny that it was the liberals and modernists who coined the term and constantly said that as long as a pope didn’t solemnly declare a doctrine, it could be questioned. It is now the cry of “I am not a papist!” that comes from the “he’s pope but it doesn’t matter what he says”.
How does one define "slavish" obedience to a pope, as opposed to "non-slavish" or just "ordinary" obedience to his doctrinal teachings? Particularly given Paragraph 20 of Pius XII's Humani Generis. Are we to adopt a sort of "historical-critical" method with regard to the ordinary papal Magisterium, or its operation?
Brilliant historical survey. Yet it ultimately critiques a symptom while sidestepping the constitutional collapse beneath it. Without a demonstrable principle of mission, every proposed solution becomes little more than opinion dressed as ecclesiology.
The purpose was very narrow; strictly a survey of the historical political, social and philosophical movements that brought us here, what their influences might have been. And there are still two more parts to come.
This is excellent. Looking forward to the follow up.
Here's to hoping you might consider in the trajectory of Papolotry the thoughts of Frs. Romanides, Zizioulas and of course Kallistos Ware, Alexander Schemann and John Meyendorff, all of whom wrote on your topic. https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2021/11/father-john-romanides-his-life-and.html?m=1
https://www.mystagogyresourcecenter.com/search?q=Zizioulas&m=1
The job at hand wasn’t to critique the phenomenon itself - from any point of view, whether Latin or Orthodox - but to trace its history in the western Church as a thread through the history of western Europe. I’m not qualified to make theological investigations.
Exactly, and much of what is written by these and other thinkers is about the history of the phenomenon. Orthodox take the Papacy very seriously, which I have found most Western thinkers (Roman Catholic and Protestant and secular) to be only mildly aware of, if that. But a huge corpus about the Papacy pre-1054 exists that could inform any history about the trajectory of papolotry. Here's a good one if you're not familiar with it. https://svspress.com/christian-east-and-the-rise-of-the-papacy-the/
And Fr. Cyril Hovorun. You can draw inferences for your study on his pre-Nicea work, as here: (99+) Arles, Nicea, and Constantine https://share.google/Xu1msyIxBueRyZ4Rj
I was also restricting myself to developments in Europe and the Latin Church from the 17th century on. I'm not writing a book.
Ah, understood. How do you determine a cutoff, when the roots run so deep into antiquity?
You just make an editorial decision, because you know that you are not launching a lifetime's worth of work, and have competing priorities.
And because you are aware that even the existence of a thing called the "Early Modern Period" is almost completely unknown to the general reading public, which has created a critical gap in that public's ability to understand what's going on today. How many Anglos - American, Canadian, British, Australian - Catholics know the first thing about the 30 Years War and its immense impact on the Church? The late 16th and 17th century was a critical moment in creating the reality we all now, unfortunately, have to live in today, the moment when Europe definitively abandoned an entire way of thinking, behaving and governing, and adopted something new.
Looking forward to your next installment!!
So glad to find Hilary's essays here!
Popes of the 1st millennium were more modest in their claims of primacy. It seems to me that papalotry really started with the disputes between Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII.
I didn’t get into the Investiture Controversy since the piece was intended to cover more broadly what was happening over 300 years starting in the 17th century. But there’s definitely a series there too.
Hope that you will do a follow-up series on this!
Funny that it was the liberals and modernists who coined the term and constantly said that as long as a pope didn’t solemnly declare a doctrine, it could be questioned. It is now the cry of “I am not a papist!” that comes from the “he’s pope but it doesn’t matter what he says”.
How does one define "slavish" obedience to a pope, as opposed to "non-slavish" or just "ordinary" obedience to his doctrinal teachings? Particularly given Paragraph 20 of Pius XII's Humani Generis. Are we to adopt a sort of "historical-critical" method with regard to the ordinary papal Magisterium, or its operation?
Fantastic.
Brilliant historical survey. Yet it ultimately critiques a symptom while sidestepping the constitutional collapse beneath it. Without a demonstrable principle of mission, every proposed solution becomes little more than opinion dressed as ecclesiology.
The purpose was very narrow; strictly a survey of the historical political, social and philosophical movements that brought us here, what their influences might have been. And there are still two more parts to come.