What “Papolatry” is and What We Can Learn from Tolkien’s Epic Story

One of the most serious errors widespread today is designated by the term “papolatry.” This error is not manifested through denial but rather through an excessive affirmation of the Pope’s authority and privileges. To designate it, there is at least one alternative term, namely the concept of “hyperpapalism” proposed by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski in his comprehensive monograph, The Road from Hyperpapalism to Catholicism (Arouca Press, 2022). However, the most commonly used word remains the former. In this article, I want to explain as clearly as possible the meanings of this term. I hope to respond to some of the common criticisms made by those Catholics who perceive this term as an attack directed against the pontifical function itself and its attributes.

The critical reactions, sometimes extremely negative, provoked by the accusation of “papolatry” are easily understandable. The sound of the word immediately evokes another term that indicates one of the most serious sins denounced by the Judeo-Christian Tradition: idolatry. This association is normal considering the etymology of the two words. Of Greek origin, the latter term is composed of eídōlon (“idol”) + látris (“worshipper”) or latreúō (“I worship”), and indicates the highest act that man owes exclusively to God, an act that, instead of being directed towards the supreme, infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator, is directed towards a creature – the idol (whatever it may be). In summary, idolatry consists of worshiping the creature instead of the Creator. The history of the chosen people of Israel is a long confrontation between the monotheistic Judean religion and the polytheistic, idolatrous religions of the surrounding pagan nations.

Since my conversion in 2000, I have encountered some Catholics who believe in a “papal oracle.” For them, the pope is permanently guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way that everything he says – at least as Pope, if not also as a private person – must be received as if it came directly from the mouth of God.

The term “papolatry” has a mixed origin, Greco-Latin. It comes from the Latin pāpa (“Pope”), to which, similar to the term “idolatry,” the Greek látris (“worshipper”) or latreúō (“I worship”) is added. Therefore, from a strictly philological point of view, the term “papolatry” seems to indicate the worship of the Pope instead of God. It is evident why the use of such a word often triggers strong reactions. Adding the fact that the first to use our term were Protestant reformers makes the rejection even clearer. For these reasons, Dr. Kwasniewski chose to create a new term, “hyperpapalism,” which does not sound as excessive to the ears of certain Catholics.

Although I acknowledge that the term “papolatry” is strong, I interchangeably use both words. If someone were to ask me about their meanings, I would first respond with a concrete example taken from the words of many Catholic believers, priests, and bishops who often speak of the “supreme authority” of the Pope. I think that it is imprudent and risky to use such words when not speaking about God – because only God has “supreme authority.” As I have already shown in other articles, the authority of any member of the Church hierarchy, be it a priest, bishop, or pope, derives from divine authority and depends on it. It is exactly like our teaching about the Holy Virgin Mary: although she is unquestionably called the mediator (mediatrix) of all graces, no true Catholic will say that she is the source of these divine graces. Similarly, the fact that the Pope is indeed the highest authority on earth does not mean that he is the source of this authority. The Pope is just a vicar – that is, the representative of the Savior Christ, whom he represents – but not His substitute.

In such a confusing and chaotic context as the modern world, where we all feel the need for true guides, we often become victims of our own lack of discernment and moderation.

Since my conversion in 2000, I have encountered some Catholics who believe in a “papal oracle.” For them, the pope is permanently guided by the Holy Spirit in such a way that everything he says – at least as Pope, if not also as a private person – must be received as if it came directly from the mouth of God. Such a belief has serious consequences regarding the exercise of discernment. For example, under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, things happened that, from a Christian perspective, fall into the category of the sin of scandal or even sacrilege (e.g. the meeting at Assisi, the enthronement of a statue of Buddha on the tabernacle of the altar at Saint Peter’s Church in Assisi, the turning of a blind eye to the case of Marcial Maciel despite the evidence, etc.). All such facts are systematically overlooked – and even denied – by those who are touched by hyperpapalism. They cannot accept that a Pope can grievously sin and make mistakes in such serious matters. Also, they cannot accept under any circumstances that a Pope could be a heretic or schismatic, even if this possibility has not raised any concerns for Catholics in other epochs.

Some defend themselves by saying that “papolatry” is not a heresy. Although it is not a heresy in the strict sense of the word, it is indeed an excess that is difficult to define. It is not related only to the Pope. Any religious leadership position can be accompanied by similar phenomena of “idolization” by the followers. The problem is that we, as fallen beings, are prone to error. And in such a confusing and chaotic context as the modern world, where we all feel the need for true guides, we often become victims of our own lack of discernment and moderation.

In a response to a reader upset about using the term “papolatry” in an article, Michael J. Matt explained that this is a term “coined by the late Dr. William Mara to describe the Protestant caricature of the theology of the papacy, i.e., that we Catholics ‘worship’ the pope as if he IS Christ rather than His vicar.” The essence of this accurate description is related to a more difficult-to-perceive issue. It is about the misguided transfer of divine prerogatives to someone to whom God Himself has entrusted the mission of representing Him on earth. More specifically, it is about considering the Pope not as a vicar but as a substitute for Christ with capabilities similar to those of the Savior. As a note, I clarify that this happens with any Christian who, instead of obediently respecting the commands and teachings established by God Himself, replaces them – through unfaithful personal interpretations – with his own teachings. Remember the Pharisees and Sadducees? They were “experts” at turning insignificant things into essential commands and minimizing essential commands.

Imagine how grave it is for a Church hierarch – especially a Pope – to do such a thing in order “to be nice” to unrepentant sinners. But to understand this in all its horror, we must first admit that a Pope can sin just like any other baptized Christian, including through the sin of heresy, apostasy, or schism.

Such an incredible episode is recounted in the Gospel according to Mark (7: 5-13), when the Pharisees and scribes reproach Jesus for the fact that his disciples, the apostles, eat with unwashed hands. The Savior’s response shows how, in the name of such human traditions, they ignore grave divine commandments such as “Honour thy father and thy mother and He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die.” In other words, by substituting themselves for God, they had come to dictate, against divine commandments, which teachings are essential and which are not. Even if they did not necessarily invent an alternative set of laws to the one received by Moses from God, they replaced, through “subtle” interpretations, God’s commandments with human commands. With utmost clarity, we must admit that anyone who attempts to “interpret” God’s commandments with the purpose, consciously or unconsciously, of not fulfilling them, has substituted himself for Christ the Savior. God alone has the right to teach us how to live so that we may enter His Kingdom, enjoying the heavenly happiness for which He created us.

If it is already extremely serious for a believer to “craft” his own Gospel in order to avoid those commandments he does not wish to respect, imagine how grave it is for a Church hierarch – especially a Pope – to do such a thing in order “to be nice” to unrepentant sinners. But to understand this in all its horror, we must first admit that a Pope can sin just like any other baptized Christian, including through the sin of heresy, apostasy, or schism. However difficult it may be for us to accept this possibility, there is no dogma postulating the contrary. The corruption of soul and mind can engulf even the highest levels of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Let us remember that the High Priest (a function equivalent to that of the Pope, as Saint Francis of Sales suggests in The Catholic Controversy), Caiaphas, is the one who condemned Jesus Christ to death, saying, “it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:50).

Denethor II, son of Ecthelion II, refuses to acknowledge the true king when revealed. In other words, the steward, although never sitting on the King’s throne, behaves as if he were the King himself, demanding subjects to honor him as such and treating the true and only King of Gondor with disdain. Here lies the essence of the phenomenon called “papolatry.”

To complete all that I have said above, I will remind you of an episode from J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary creation, The Lord of the Rings. I do this convinced that, often, writers and poets wonderfully describe difficult situations and teachings through images. The essence of the entire story in the Oxford professor’s novel is related to one of the deepest hopes of Christians throughout history: the return of the Great King. Whether it is the victorious return of Christ on a white horse at the end of history, described in the Book of Revelation (11:19 sq.), or just the return of a rightful Catholic king like Alfred the Great or Charles I of Austria, this is the core of Tolkien’s epic story.

So, in The Lord of the Rings, Aragorn, the hidden king who is the heir of Isildur, an ancient King of Arnor and Gondor, must reclaim the throne of Gondor. However, the most terrible thing is not his confrontation with the disciple of Satan (i.e., Melkor), Sauron. It is the fact that the steward (that is, “the vicar”) of the King in his absence, Denethor II, son of Ecthelion II, refuses to acknowledge the true king when revealed. In other words, the steward, although never sitting on the King’s throne, behaves as if he were the King himself, demanding subjects to honor him as such and treating the true and only King of Gondor with disdain. Here lies the essence of the phenomenon called “papolatry.”

Through an illegitimate (and, maybe, unconscious) transfer, qualities and privileges that pertain exclusively to God himself come to be attributed to His Vicar on earth, the Pope, while the King himself, God, is disregarded. If my words seem too strong to someone, I invite you to remember one thing: when God himself, the King of the Universe, asked at Fatima through the Virgin Mary for Russia to be consecrated by the Pope and all bishops in communion with him to the Immaculate Heart, none of the “stewards” fulfilled His command. Personally, I believe that in the entire history of the Church and the world, there has been no more unfortunate event than this. Probably it was the highest act of disobedience ever recorded. Can we, perhaps, be surprised by what we see happening even at the highest levels of the hierarchy?

If I may chime in with some problems I see:

The likes of Kwasniewski and Roberto de Mattei who want to "rethink the Papacy" do so in order to keep Pope Francis at the expense of traditional Catholic eccleisology. Yet in doing so, they unwittingly undermine the Church's own teaching authority: "Today, some seek to explain the present crisis by asserting that “in the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium there may be errors and even, in exceptional cases, heretical formulations.” This raises further problems. It suggests that the Church is an untrustworthy guide for the simple, and requires the more educated to always check whether a given teaching is in conformity with her constant magisterium before giving assent."

But is that not just what TradCaths do, as in holding that modern RC teaching is only true and binding if, in their judgment, it conforms to what they determine ancient church teaching states? Which, in this regard, they are essentially acting as evangelicals are supposed to, except that for them ancient church teaching is based upon the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels), thus rejecting distinctive RC teachings. Which includes ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV).

And from the OP article:

in the Gospel according to Mark (7: 5-13), when the Pharisees and scribes reproach Jesus for the fact that his disciples, the apostles, eat with unwashed hands. The Savior’s response shows how, in the name of such human traditions, they ignore grave divine commandments such as “Honour thy father and thy mother and He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die.” In other words, by substituting themselves for God, they had come to dictate, against divine commandments, which teachings are essential and which are not.

However, this is an appeal to Scripture over oral tradition of those who sat in the seat of Moses. Who "claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine (R. H. 25a).. They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees

And instead of full assent to the historical magisterium (and the RC model), the NT church began with pious souls following an itinerant Preacher and His disciples whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved upon Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27, 44; Jn. 5:36, 39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) For (without an infallible magisterium, an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ, and which provided the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation for it.

However, in Roman Catholicism, since discernment of the magisterial level of documents (and thus their required assent) allowance of error leads to divisions, then there are many papal statements which attest to an Acts 17:11 basis for assurance of doctrine being contrary to confidence in RC leadership.

Such as,

"the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent."

As ultramontane cardinal Manning essentially asserts that Truth is only what Rome states it is and means.

"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. ." (Henry Edward Manning, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation, pp. 227-228).

And if a RC gets into the problematic business of "the non-infallible ordinary Magisterium there may be errors" then it requires ascertaining the difference btwn infallible and non-infallible teachings. Was the Syllabus of Pius X infallible or not? Theologians hold opposite opinions. How about encyclicals? ([Error condemned] "If a pope is foreknown as damned and is evil, and is therefore a limb of the devil, he does not have authority over the faithful given to him by anyone, except perhaps by the emperor." Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, and Hus: Session XV; DNZ:621, 617, 588) QUO PRIMUM TEMPORE? Which parts of such, as well as the CCC? Esp. if "Author [helped] of Catechism says Pope could change language on LGBTQ+ issues." (https://cruxnow.com/2023-consistory-and-synod-for-synodality/2023/10/author-of-catechism-says-pope-could-change-teaching-on-lgbtq-issues)

Since there is no infallible list of infallible teachings (and which extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma) and their meaning is not always clear, then there is dispute from many Catholics about such.

Related to this is Vatican Two with its "clarifying" (as some may put it) of historical teaching, to which, even if only a pastoral council, religious submission is required (This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful." - — Pope Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966; "You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others." - Pope Paul VI's Letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvrez)

Vatican Two itself states,

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking [Lumen Gentium 25].

Yet this if room for dissent is to be found, then the RC must discern when a pope speaks in a way that does not engage his Magisterial authority. And overall, some RC theologians hold that protection only exist as regards salvific error.

Donum Veritatis (Ratzinger) allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media," but with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented," with "an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him." prayerfully trusting "that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail." " When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies." (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html)

And defenders of broad protection from errors in faith and morals warn, "Despite what has been implied by some sections of the far-right corner of Catholic social media, this special dispensation of non-assent is not extended to the lay faithful in general, but is limited to accredited theologians....Catholics should thus keep in mind the gravity of making such public claims against the person of the Roman Pontiff, as adopting this position would necessarily involve alleging an unprecedented break in the perpetual papal succession by way of formal heresy." (https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2017/11/04/news/the-indefectibility-of-the-church-1.34379287/)

Which excludes lay theologians as the popular articulate Ron Conte: "A non-infallible ordinary teaching requires only ordinary assent (the religious submission of will and intellect) because errors are possible in non-infallible teachings." - http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/contra-cardinal-ratzinger-on-levels-of-assent/

Instead of rethinking the Papacy (as though traditional ecclesiology mandates the "hyperpapalist" mentality they allege, which was precisely the error of Dollinger and the Gallicans), simply apply it: the answer it gives is that Francis, as a non-Catholic in virtue of his mamifest heresies, cannot possibly be Pope

But that solution impugns the character of the College of Cardinals which elected him, and the trustworthiness of the shepherds which RCs are supposed to follow, and overall that of faith in the Roman church, which indeed presents itself as an object of faith, of security and allegiance, in which by nature is constituted as suppressing principled public dissent.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.