“There’s always a king somewhere.”
Or so says Michner in his book, “The Source.”
I tend to agree with him.
No matter how democratic a democratic nation or organization might be,
there is a person or small group of persons with undue influence on how things
go. There is a de facto person in
charge. Even if it is simply by natural
selection there is that person that people will naturally turn toward as leader
even if that leader is charged with making sure the democratic nature is
upheld.
I would also augment Michner’s statement to say, “There is always
a pope.” We could extend it further and
say, “there is always a Tradition.” And
it seems the more a church fights against popes and tradition, the more they
entrench the very ideas they wish to deny.
Take, for example, a typical non-denominational church where
the very thought of having a leader acting as a universal vicar for Christ is
taught as an abhorrent notion. Where
does that very notion come from? The
pastor of the church – perhaps in consultation with some form of elders. Sounds very much like a pope in consultation
with his cardinals. There is an
established hierarchy (even if there is a strong effort to deny and hide the
fact) but the belief system is not left to chance. There is a clear message with an
authoritative leader.
“Ahhh,” a dissenter from this thought might say, “but that
pastor or that church board is not speaking on its own but, inspired by the
Holy Spirit, is only speaking the unadulterated truth of the Gospel and not
adding anything to it.” (Sola Scriptura
as it is known.) This is actually a very
good retort and one that could be taken seriously if those who subscribed to
such a belief did not splinter into thousands and thousands of churches on just
about every point in the Bible.
Take this example:
Baptism. Some say that it is
necessary for salvation, others do not.
Some say that it transforms who we are, others see it as a rite of
passage. Some see it as permanent, some
do not. Some see at as an assurance of
heaven, some do not. Some understand the
Trinitarian formula much as the Catholic Church does, some are far from
it. If Scripture is so very clear so
that all one has to do is read it and it will give you the exact instructions
on what to do to be admitted into heaven, how on earth could there be so many
interpretations of what it says?
And how do people of any given denomination (or so called
non-denominations) know what interpretation to follow. There is only one answer: It is their Tradition – the very unbiblical interpretation
of what they are reading and pass on from one believer to the next. It may be voted on by a conference, a
congregation, held in a writing of a founder, interpreted by a pastor, history
book, or decided upon by grandma at the dining room table and passed on to her
family but in any event it is a Tradition on how to interpret the Scripture
being read. (Even which version of
Scripture to read is a Tradition. The accumulation
of the Bible itself is a result of Tradition.)
Every church you pass on the way to Mass has some form of
pope and exercises some form of Tradition.
It is just much more transparent at your Catholic parish.
3 comments:
Cha ching!
I agree that all Christian denominations have some functional equivalent for extra-Biblical tradition and/or authority. I think what sets us apart is our claim, nay, our dogmatic assertion, that our Tradition/authority is infallible. Oh, the audacity of dogma.
Awhile ago it occurred to me that those Protestants who listen to a "favorite preacher" (TV,radio, or at their church) elevate that person's teachings to the point of infallibility.
The preacher becomes their "Pope."
Post a Comment