There are a few famous people I would like to meet, but not to ogle them. They are my song-writing heroes, and what I really want to do is go for coffee and pick their brains, to learn what they know and glean any little thing I can that might help me improve my craft. To learn from those famous leaders.

So, you wanna go for coffee, Shaun? Oh, wait. I see by the stain in the bottom-right corner you’ve got your cup already…

You said, “I have many reasons for not being Catholic, among them the absence of evidence, in my estimation of Peter-as-Holy Father-His-Holiness-Pope in, say, Acts 15.  Folks can read for themselves and see if there’s anything pope-like going on there.  I can always be wrong.”

When I said that I had a different take on Acts 15 than you, it had to do more with what conclusions I would expect to draw from the passage than a real difference on whether either of us thinks Acts 15 presents a case for papal supremacy (especially since you don’t give all the credit to James for the council’s decision, as my pastor did numerous times growing up).  I was responding to the specific assertion “It’s interesting to me… that even Peter, presumed first leader of the church, isn’t treated in any special way at all.  In Acts 15, for instance, there’s an issue with a whole gathering of believers to work it out.“

My point was that the assertion that Peter didn’t receive any special honor in the early church with Acts 15 presented as evidence is one made from sparse/arguably nonexistent evidence.  For one, as an apostle, he was present at the council of Jerusalem, which most believers weren’t.  Acts 15 wasn’t just a “gathering of believers” it was a gathering of the *Leaders* of the early church.  It wasn’t a decision by democracy, it was a decision by the leadership in union with the Holy Spirit.  At least they said that their decision was the same as the Holy Spirit and expected believers to trust them on that.

Acts 15 gives an account of the first ecumenical council.  Sure, Peter took the lead at that council and was the first one to make the case for not requiring circumcision of the Gentiles, but like you said he was just one of several bishops at that council.  If you look at later Church councils from Nicea to Vatican II, you will find similar patterns.  The pope often plays a prominent role, but his voice isn’t necessarily the best remembered nor the most influential.  In many ways, Peter played a more influential role at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 than numerous popes have done at later councils.  Acts 15 isn’t considered by Catholics to be the basis for papal authority, but for the authority of the bishops to act in unison at a church council.  You see, Jesus and the apostles never taught that after the apostles died the Church could never again be able to decide doctrine at a church council.  I’m happy to be part of the Catholic Church which is still able to function as the NT church did with the bishops acting at council.

Regarding titles for the pope, you forgot another common one, Servant of the Servants of God.  To a Catholic, these titles are indicative of the position and function of the pope, not necessarily of his personal character (though recent popes have been amazingly holy people).  In that sense they are a *prophetic reminder to the pope of who he should be.* These titles aren’t exclusive to certain popes, but given to all while they live.  You see, people love the pope because of the position he holds.  We don’t honor the pope just because of some talent or characteristic that he possesses.  The pope is a father figure, not a rock star.  As Rodney Stark would recognize, that’s the beauty of organic movements like the Catholic Church.  Any number of people could take the current pope’s place and lead just as well, receiving the same honor, recognition and authority, etc.  It’s not about the person!

This is the weakness, I think of the CEO style of leadership that much of nondenominational American churches are based on.  So much stock is put in personal talent, etc, that churches find it difficult to continue with the same gusto once a particular charismatic pastor passes on.  They like to say it will continue and sometimes another leader is brought forward to take their place, but the organizations themselves are heavily dependent on charismatic personalities to lead.

In addition, prayer is a tremendous protection against sin, even against the sin of pride.  If the prayer of a righteous man avails much, how much more the prayers of millions of righteous people.  And that’s what people are doing for the pope every hour of every day of every month of every year of his pontificate.  In nearly every mass in every Catholic church and in millions upon millions of homes, the pope is being lifted up in prayer before almighty God, pleading for His favor and protection upon the pope. 

Seriously, Brant (or anyone else), can you imagine what would happen in your own life if 10 or 20 tremendously holy people began praying for you every hour of every day?  Try multiplying that a million and you will get a feel for the kind of heavenly aid the pope receives.  Throw in somebody who is assigned to be your confessor, hold you accountable before God and dispense God’s mercy to you in the manner of John 20:21-23 and you will further understand the kind of support and accountability he has.

Lastly, being the pope isn’t something most Catholics would wish on those they love, and the current pope is a good example of that.  Ratzinger had asked JPII to appoint someone else to head the CDF numerous times and was always refused.  He continued on in his position in Rome *out of obedience,* but it was well known that he had been trying for several years to return to his academic roots in Germany and end his life in quiet study and writing.  The papacy is a position given to somebody often at the end of their life when they are ready to cut down on the amount of work and travel that they do.  It is a position for which there is tremendous pressure and no real break and which one holds until death.  Even misinterpreted words ripped entirely out of context may result in the death/martyrdom of people associated with your faith (as happened to a nurse/nun in Africa when the Pope’s remarks at the University of Regensburg were ripped out of context by ignoramus reporters and further used to incite Muslim riots around the world).

In conclusion, while it is true that you, “rightly predicted (I’d) disagree with (you) on Peter,“ you mostly got the substance of the disagreement on Acts 15 wrong.  It also appears to me that you misunderstand the nature of the honor Catholics give to the pope. 

MB

Honor of a sort is great, and then there is another sense in which we are warned against it, and it sure seems the “celebrated” person sense.  This is my contention with regard to celebrity culture.  We are flat-out not to treat some as more important than others.  Our celebrity culture does this.

I appreciate Kyle’s point about Bono, who’s twisting it to his (and, wonderfully, others’ advantage, which is the coolest.  But, like he says, the culture of celebrity is ridiculous.  Ridiculous and unfair and uneuqal is decidedly not neutral, especially for a church culture.

I rightly predicted you’d disagree with me on Peter.  You’re a intelligent Catholic, with intelligent reasons for being Catholic.  I have many reasons for not being Catholic, among them the absence of evidence, in my estimation of Peter-as-Holy Father-His-Holiness-Pope in, say, Acts 15.  Folks can read for themselves and see if there’s anything pope-like going on there.  I can always be wrong.

If we want leaders to lead without pride, as you say, perhaps(?) we shouldn’t be calling him “His Holiness” and asking him to live in splendor.  I’m not picking on the Catholic Church here, there are American evangelical analogues, to be sure.  We’re going to disagree along the usual lines, and I’m okay with that.

“Celebrity is ridiculous and silly and it’s mad that people like me are listened to — you know, rap stars and movie stars. You know, rather than nurses and farmhands and others. But it is currency. Celebrity is currency, so I wanted to use mine effectively.”

Now, i’m not the biggest Bono fan in the world but, I wonder if this is some of what Paul was thinking when he was telling people to “do as he did” or imitate/celebrate him. He was (in a sense) using a God-given status of “celebrity” in the right way, by pointing to God.

Maybe “celebrity” isn’t “good” or “bad”, sort of like money isn’t “good” or “bad” it’s all how you view it and how you spend it. I mean burning $100 bills when you could use them to care for others is just as bad as keeping them in your greedy little pocket. Maybe “celebrity” is the same way.

While, I appreciate your willingness to engage in respectful discussion and appreciate your tone above, I think there is more to this topic than you’ve put forward.

“But there’s no precedent, as far as I can tell, for putting certain people in the church in positions of honor.  In fact, we’re flat-out warned against it.

It’s interesting to me (and since you’re Catholic, I would imagine you’d disagree) that even Peter, presumed first leader of the church, isn’t treated in any special way at all.”

Two things.

1) How do you know Peter wasn’t treated “in any special way at all.” This seems to be an argument based on a lack of evidence, more than anything else.  For the most part, we really don’t know what specific honor Peter was shown because his daily interactions with people aren’t recorded.  What evidence we do have can certainly be interpreted to say that he did receive special honor, much more than the average Christian.  I certainly have a different take on Acts 15 than you (as have the vast majority of Christians over the centuries).  That doesn’t by itself make my interpretation right, but it should give one pause before dismissing it.

2) Regarding honoring folks, Scripture several times tells us to do so, even in the NT.  Honor parents, honor the emperor (seriously), honor widows, etc.  And you know who is supposed to get DOUBLE honor?  Elders who RULE the church well. 

“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;” I Timothy 5:17

Of course elders who rule the church should infuse their rule with a spirit of humility and service and guard against pride.  They will be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.  However, that doesn’t do away with God’s command that we honor those in authority over us, both outside and inside the Church.

I’m not saying I disagree with everything people have written above.  Much of it is very good.  I have focused on one aspect of honor to the exclusion of others because I didn’t see it represented very well in the above thread.  Balance is needed here because Scripture speaks neither in a solely approving way of honor, nor in a solely disapproving manner.

MB

Over health, money, family, friends, good grades, getting into a good college, whatever.

I was surprised.  What happened?  I honestly don’t get it, but I was a teenager 10 years ago and don’t remember it being anything like this.  Is it really YouTube (anyone can be famous) or is this just an extension of “it’s good to be popular” that teenagers have always had?

Anyway, the church has celebrity, the church has the “cool kids”, and the church most assuredly has cliques.  It is very hard to love the way Jesus loved, and taught us to love.  I guess change starts in our hearts…making sure we ARE loving that smelly woman, talking to her and inviting her over for dinner just as much as the cool new worship leader.  You know?

Yes, in one sense of the word, we should certainly honor our parents, or hold some achievements (curing disease) in higher regard than others (getting busted for DUI.)

But there’s no precedent, as far as I can tell, for putting certain people in the church in positions of honor.  In fact, we’re flat-out warned against it.

It’s interesting to me (and since you’re Catholic, I would imagine you’d disagree) that even Peter, presumed first leader of the church, isn’t treated in any special way at all.  In Acts 15, for instance, there’s an issue with a whole gathering of believers to work it out.  Peter speaks, among others, but doesn’t even have the last word, and there’s no indication at all he has honor and some kind of eminence.  He’s one of the leader-servants.

Jesus made it clear:  If you want to be honored, don’t be a big-shot speaker or visionary.  Be the foot-washer.  Be on guard when people honor you—something’s amiss.

Consumerism values ignorance over knowledge, image over substance, etc. etc.

It’s why someone can put the face of Che Guevera on a t-shirt and have no idea who that is and what he did.

Or why the gospel becomes name-it-claim-it.

For instance.

It seems odd to me that in a culture that has lost much of the sense of honor it used to hold for certain people because of their position (e.g., teachers, parents), we have developed a parallel celebrity culture that takes honor to an entirely new, unhealthy level. 

I also find it interesting to compare/contrast Jesus’ railings against the scribes and pharisees as a group with his command to obey them that preceded it (Matt 23) and with Paul’s excuse/apology for insulting the high priest in (from my perspective) more respectful terms than Jesus’ used (Acts 23).  Knowing when/how to express disagreement while maintaining legitimate honor for those in authority over us can be a challenge.

MB