I'm very confused. A friend of mine who is a very knowledgeable and devout Catholic suggested this book to me. I'm wondering if it was either a joke or if he never even read the book.
I just completed the introduction (and I do intend on reading the rest) but talk about undercutting the worth and merit of the Papacy.
The first thing that stood out:
"The historical reality, of course, is not quite so simple. The most famous of all 'papal' bible texts, Matthew 16:18 - "You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church...and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven' - is quoted in no Roman source before the time of the Decian persecution in the middle of the third century, and the very roots of what may be called the foundation myths of the papacy are uncomfortably complicated."
It doesn't get much better:
"Christianity established itself in Rome some time in the AD 40s. Historians are now by and large agreed that for the best part of the century that followed there was nothing and nobody in Rome who could properly be called a pope."
"The earliest surviving succession list of the Roman bishops was recorded towards the end of the second century by St. Irenaeus of Lyon, as part of a general argument that the best way to refute heretics was to refer them to the doctrine that the bishops of the great apostolic churches had received from the Apostles."
"It reached its most famous expression in the early fourteenth century with Boniface VIII, whose bull Unam sanctam declared that it was 'altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff'. Everything the modern papcy claims, and very much more besides, such as the papal deposing power, was claimed for the post then."
"In a real sense it is, rather, the result of historical catastrophe, the French Revolution. The Revolution swept away the Catholic kings who had appointed bishops and ruled churches, and once more made the popes seem the embodiment of ancient certainties."
"The most crucial and important practical power possessed by modern popes is arguably the right to appoint the bishops of the world, and thereby to shape the character of the local churches. It is salutary to remind ourselves taht the popes did not possess this unchecked power in canon law until 1917, and the practice of direct papal appointment of bishops did not become general until the nineteenth century."
----this point, even if true, seems alittle off. "The most crucial and important practical power" appointing bishops? I would assume anyone (Catholic or not) would say the most crucial and important practical power would be for the pope to declare infallibly on doctrinal and moral matters.
But still: I am not able to dispute the veracity of these claims. Either my friend was pulling a big prank on me or this is his cry for help. Because this introduction is one of the most critical things I have read on the integrity of papal claims.