Expert: Tyler Eldred (formally known as DarkBlue) - 3/3/2009

Question
why is it that the Pope (??) back in the early 1500's made a statement of edict that he alone is the sole representative between God and man? Doesen't this remove the significant and Divinity of Jesus being crucified?

Answer
Dear Dan,
   I sincerely apologize for taking so long to respond to your message. I can see that it is important to you that no one blasphemes the saving reality of Jesus Christ, which is a very honorable thing, as it is for His namesake that such things are done. Indeed for reasons not unlike this I decided to register as an expert for this website in the first place. I can see why you are concerned. The office of pope has been given an immense responsibility as a leader for the Church and the implications are clearly grave should that position be abused or misused by blasphemy or false teaching (when I say "the Church," I mean the whole Christian Church, which is all the faithful of God). To lead so many astray in that way would be an act of anti-Christianity that would seem to severely undermine the spiritual authority concerning the pope, would call for some serious considerations about the entire concept of the Church altogether. Now to the investigation of the particular questions that you asked me.
   You referred to a specific statement made by an early 16th century pope, which you said was a statement of edict. As part of my response I wanted to take a close look at that particular quote to see what exactly this pope had meant and what I could tell you about it, but unfortunately I was unable to find the statement that you had been referring to. There were about 10 popes that led during that century, and from the surface level research I could find on them nothing had came up about sort of statement you had been referring to. I could only find four edicts that were declared during the 1500s, but all of them were made by kings and none of them had to do with the matter at hand. I considered that it would be likely that this sort of thing would be in what is called a papal bull, which is basically a formal statement or declaration made by the pope. But of the initial 15 or so that I found for the time period, none of them concerned this topic. The most probable location that I would ascribe to this quote would be of Pope Leo X concerning Martin Luther or the Protestant Reformation, and so by investigating further I found that Pope Leo X actually did write a papal bull stating that all Christian must believe in his power to grant indulgences. Although I couldn't find a copy of this text (or even its title), it seems very possible that such a statement as the one you described would be in there.
   Since I do not know the exact quotation or its origin, I will give a more general answer so that we may have a "measuring stick" to consider all of these questions and more. (I will, though, in my answer, quickly discuss indulgences, because of the relevance it plays to the issue at hand, not to mention the fact that this very well may be the subject matter of the quote to which you referred.) There are a large variety of unknown factors and interpretations of this statement without having the exact text in hand, but there can ultimately be only one of two results: either that the pope of the time had declared something that harmfully false or something that was refreshingly true.
   We could accept the possibility of the first one, without really any consequence to our understanding of the Church. Not even Catholic doctrine says that the pope is perfect or that everything the pope says in infallible. This concept of infallibility describes a trust that followers of the Catholic faith have that Christ will work through the Church altogether to allow us as a whole discern the truth about God. One instance of this is faith that the pope, whom we see as a special leading figure in the discernment of spiritual truth, may be used by God to specifically say something. If God is capable of doing that, then it follows that an instance where He does do this, what is said is infallible, since God in infallible. When the pope says something which is to be regarded as infallible in this way, it said to be spoken "ex cathedra." (The particular translation and meaning of this term is something that I will mention later.) Less than ten of the statements ever made by popes have been declared as ex cathedra (none pertaining to the matter at hand). So what I am trying to say here is that if we encounter an instance where a pope has said something out of line, it is not inconsistent with the faith in Church altogether if it isn’t ex cathedra.
   How could it be, you may wonder, that it is possible that the pope may have said a true statement here? We could of course consider that what he actually meant was something quite different or that there is a different translation of his words where he is interpreted to mean something different. Such cases are not impossible. But these accounts need not even be given if there exists some explanation of this statement that is not blasphemous. You asked the question, "Doesen't this remove the significance and Divinity of Jesus being crucified?" and although I do not know the exact words that this pope said, I do think that there are ways that the answer to this question could be "no it doesn't." The next part of my response will aim to explain this point as I understand it.
   There is so much to say about the significance and Divinity of Jesus, especially in His crucifixion. Certainly it is one of the most important things that we can understand if not in fact the most important thing we could ever some to understand. For the present, though, I aim to point out some different ways that someone can in a formal way fail to uphold the significance and Divinity of Our Lord by describe the qualities of that significance and Divinity. One way concerns worship. We know that we must worship God and Him only, and this worship means that it is He that we adore and regard as great, not ourselves or any other thing on this earth. Therefore it is imperative that one never participates or encourages worship that isn't of God in any way. Another aspect concerns salvation. Jesus is our only savior, and it is only by His merit that we receive salvation. This reality drives the depths of the deep gratitude that we feel as we come to better understand our redemption. Therefore no one should honor someone or something else for the salvation that Christ has brought, or look to a different source other than God for salvation. Yet another way concerns goodness. God is the source of goodness, and any goodness we experience here on this earth is on account of God's goodness, so let us proclaim nothing of goodness of but Him. Of course there are degrees to which all of these things can be done, and if we ask Him God will always forgive us. But the particular wonder here is if the pope has done one of these in a formal way from his position as pope. So here is the image that I want to bring to mind, God who is the source of all goodness, our unique redeemer, and the only one deserving of worship.
   It has, however, been part of God's intention that He use others is service of God. He desires, for example, the goodness of a family working together in community, though we are all part of the family of Christ. He desires the charity of the rich taking care of the poor. He desires to use people to proclaim Word of God to others by their love so that their heart may be won over to the Lord. He could have had these sort of things happen to people in a more direct way, but he had decided to use us instead. Thus we see part of the reasoning behind our Christian mission and the Church. It begins with the commissioning of the 12 apostles. Before Jesus ascended into heaven, He sends out the apostles as workers in the vineyard of Christ, reaping the seeds sown in the hearts of man, which is the salvation of our Christ. In particular, Catholics believe that in this way Jesus called St Peter to be the first pope, when He says "you are the rock I shall build my Church on," in Matthew 16, and from a historical standpoint every pope can trace their succession back to Peter, and every bishop to these 12 apostles. This concept is called apostolic succession. (And so since ex cathedra means "from the seat," it refers the office of Peter, it is a specific reference to the power and purpose in which the office was created.) So this concept of God choosing others to share in His mission is clear. My claim would be that there is the possibility that this is the sort of ‘representation’ that the pope might have been referring to: acting within the Christian community to be the hands and feet of Jesus here on this earth. It is an article of the faith for some that the pope is chosen by Our Lord to be the shepherd of that community. If we think on a smaller scale and we might recognize the need for a pastor to act a head representative for the local community of a church. The pope then, by analogy, would be regarded as the head representative of the entire Church.
   It is now clear that this authority given to Peter and the other popes must not defy the characteristics of God that I referred to in the paragraph before last, so I will take this opportunity to use some examples to describe this role of the papacy further. The first point in clear: in Acts someone visits Peter and starting bowing down to him and Peter pulls him up to his feet and tells him that he is only man. I can clearly see why. It is important for the pope to recognize this so that he gives God the all of honor, but also for others to recognize, so that they are certain that the pope is not be regarded as anything greater than a man. Secondly, I think that the conversation between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 is significant. Jesus asks Peter "who do you say that I am?" to which Peter answers "I believe you are the Messiah, the son of God." and Jesus remarks that "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father." And we see that what Peter says here is at the core of upholding the greatness of the Lord that He deserves, for it is only in recognition that Jesus is Christ that we can act with the appropriate reverence. The third is actually a definition of the papacy given by Pope John Paul II, our most recent pope other than our current pope, (who is Pope Benedict XVI) and a very influential pope as well. During his papacy he called himself "the servant of the servants of God." And in this quote not only do we find the humility and selflessness that we would want to see in true piety, but we again see the servitude characteristic involved in doing the work of God.
   Now I will say a quick word on indulgences. When you give a confession at a Catholic Church, they will ask you to do a penance to show God that you are sorry for your sin. What an indulgence is the waving of that penance as a way of declaring it is no longer necessary. During Luther's time donating money to the church for the building of the new Basilica of St Peter had been granted as an indulgence by Pope Leo X, and John Tetzel had been abusing this rule by literally selling forgiveness for sins. Afterwards Tetzel was prevented from doing this and some years later, the involvement with money in all indulgences became disallowed. In the papal bull I was telling you about, Pope Leo X confirmed the pope's rights to grant indulgences, something that Luther actually didn't disagree with. One simple justification for this giving of indulgences by the pope is that through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit the pope might discern what particular practices are evident of true penance. Another justification would be in that same passage of Matthew 16. He says this to Peter "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is the key verse by which we discern that some authority has been given to Peter. One typical interpretation of this binding and loosing has to do with matters of forgiveness such as indulgences. That considered, I don't suppose that Pope Leo X ever said that he was the sole representative between man and God in the context of being the sole salvation, but if he did, you are right that the it would take away from the significance and Divinity of our Lord, if he had failed in this way to recognize the supreme authority of our Lord.
   So I know that I discussed a lot of different things in this response, and probably many in insufficient detail, but I hope that this response was at least enough to give you a bigger understanding of how the papacy should act in light of the supreme greatness of our savior. We have discussed what infallibility means and how that relates to papal statements, some characteristics of God whereof someone can blaspheme our Lord, how it could be and in what way God could call others to do His service in a way that would be obedience and not blasphemy, some fundamental characteristics of the papacy that define the piety of the position as it ought to be, and what indulgences mean and how it fits with the pope's position with respect to God and with respect to the Church. I am sure that I have challenged or disagreed with some of your views about the role of the pope, but my goals were to simply a) give a way of discerning the meaning of this specific quote and particular, and b) show what shape similar matters related to God's supremacy and the role of the pope are supposed to look like. If you have any questions about this matter or anything else, or if you want to discuss this topic further, please do not hesitate to ask me another question. I would like to thank you and thank God for your patience, your piety, your sense of judgment and reason, and your understanding. I hope and pray that God may give you the wisdom to satisfy every question in your heart.