History of the Catholic Church

I'm about halfway through Hans Küng's The Catholic Church: A Short History. I started reading it at the bookstore and couldn't put it down, so I brought it home. It is an easy, enjoyable read and appropriate for a general audience. And given its scope, it is useful for all Christians, not just Catholics.

Sitz im Leben

Küng is clear that he is telling history from his own perspective--as a modern theologian who has faced the suppression from the institutional church, but who still loves the church and wouldn't want to be anywhere else. It is always good to keep this in mind whenever we read someone else's description of history. All history is interpreted. Any time somebody gives you their take on history, they are giving you exactly that--their take on it. Even when someone works hard to give only the who, what, where and when, they still have to make decisions about which information to select and then put it together into a "story." It is good for Küng to mention this, but he is no more "guilty" of this than any other writer.

The Changing Face of Catholicism

Modern Catholics often are under the impression that the beliefs, practices and dogmas of the Church go back to the beginning of Christianity. I think most of us realize that Peter didn't wear modern papal dress or celebrate mass exactly like we would know it today. Still, the impression remains that there was a linear path of development from the early Christian communities to the Catholic Church of today.

Küng shows the messy reality of that. The enduring legacy of the popes just isn't what it is cracked up to be--there were periods of time (hundreds of years in length!) when Rome had the status of a provincial capital, not the looming height of empire. Constantinople was where it was at for that milenium, while Rome floundered. Popes were often appointed by kings and just as easily disposed by them. The idea that the pope is one central, monarchical figure one step removed from God himself who can occasionally pronounce something as "infallible" is a very modern idea.

The Emperor of Constantinople convened many of the great councils (Nicea was the Emperor's residence) and there were times the Pope was not even invited or considered much in the procedings. The Pope was not even there when the Nicene Creed was formed! That would be unheard of in the modern era, but that is a symbol of the kind of status the Pope had for a huge swath of Christian history.

Küng hopes that by showing the many ways the Church has manifested itself through time we may not be so afraid of reform in our own era. These are not traditions handed down by Jesus himself, but rather choices the church has made in organizing itself--choices that can be un-done without tampering with the substance of faith.

We're Stuck But Then We're Not Stuck

The way I see it, modern Catholics are not afraid of the fact that many of our beliefs do not come directly from the Bible. We assume that the Church of Christ has continually been developing over time, gaining in wisdom with each passing age. The same Church that assembled the Bible hundreds of years after Christ (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit) is the same one that can continue to interpret and pass on the tradition of Christ in a new way in each age.

The Bible is a crucial reference point to make sure the Church doesn't go far off track, being the "first witnesses" to Jesus. However, just because something "isn't biblical" isn't an argument that will hold up with Catholics. The same God that guided the people of Israel through generation after generation did not just stop when the Bible was written. Its not like God said, "Well, I've been working hard with these people from Adam to Abraham to the Apostles, but now its time for something different--I'm gonna leave them this Bible and they can refer to that instead of my direct involvement in their lives." The problem with a Biblical faith is that it assumes inspiration is over, and that the best we can hope for is to scientifically reconstruct how it was during biblical times. A scientific reconstruction is not faith nor is it an active and present relationship with God (see Ratzinger Eschatology).

Back to Küng and the Popes

For maybe 1,000 years, Christians regarded both Rome and the Pope the way Christians today might regard Jerusalem for sentimental reasons, but none of us look to it for direct leadership. Did I say 1,000 years? The rise of papal power is a more recent phenomenon of the last 1,000 years. A significant amount of time, for sure, but it is a development of history that can be undeveloped. There are few signs that this tradition goes anywhere near to Christ.

So the bottom line is that an evolution in the way the Church has organized itself is not automatically wrong--the Church can and should continually re-invent itself with each passing age. The Church today does not look like churches in the Bible, but that by itself is not proof of anything. However, many Catholics don't know exactly how much evolution and contrary twists and turns the Church has taken over the years.

ADDED: Concerning the Pope's presence at Nicea: The New Advent website whitewashes this a bit, saying it is "unlcear" whether the council was convened through the Emperor or along with the Pope as well, but that the Pope sent at least 2 priests as representatives! Let's read between the lines: A major council for the entire Church is convened, destined to create one of the most definitive articles of faith for all of Christianity, and the Pope is a no show! He sends two priests, not even a bishop. This is exactly what Küng is trying to argue: We are led to believe the Pope had a much stronger role in history that the facts demonstrate.