On March 13 2013 the world watched for white smoke to appear from a chimney in the Sistine Chapel, named for the late fifteenth-century Pope Sixtus IV. After it did, the Vatican announced the election of a new pope, whom Rome regards as the Christ’s representative on the earth, who, Rome says, has the power to speak infallibly from his episcopal throne. Is the papacy what Rome says it is? Is Francis really the successor of St Peter, the most recent in an unbroken succession of popes since the apostolic period? Francis is making his first papal visit to the USA tomorrow (Sept 22, 2015). This is a good opportunity for us to reflect on the papacy and to put into context some of the claims that you will hear in the mass media. Bob Godfrey is eminently qualified to help us think about the history and significance of the papacy. He has been teaching church history, including the history of the papacy, since 1974 and he joins us for this episode of Office Hours.
Here are all the Office Hours episodes.
Subscribe to Office Hours in iTunes or in some other podcast app.
Thanks for listening!
It’s funny listening to politically conservative Roman Catholics criticizing Francis to the point of asking God to deliver them from him.
One example of how the papacy causes unnecessary confusion is in how we need interpreters to interpret what Francis intends to convey when he decides to speak, even when that includes speaking to journalists and common people in their own language. The “church” which claims to be THE interpreter of Scripture needs people who are not even clergy to interpret what Francis and “the church” say to the masses, when he is intending to speak to the masses! We need LAY apologists and people who have recently become Roman Catholic to defend and explain what the pope says! What a religious sham. All this is consistent with past lies used to support the papacy, like the Donation of Constantine.
I was listening again because I posted it for some family and friends to see.
It is worse than what Dr. Godfrey says at the beginning about journalists being ignorant. People who should know better, I’m thinking of Hugh Hewitt (who participated in 2nd Republican debate) and his friend John Shroeder that blogs at Hugh’s website (both Presbyterians), say things concerning Christianity that are plain wrong and mislead many. Hugh is particularly a problem because he identifies as a Romanists at times and attends mass. From what I’ve heard in the past, Hugh was or is an elder in a Presbyterian church! I know it’s mainline, but he has a significant influence over many evangelicals.
Link is wrong
Thank you Daniel for letting me know about this. The link is fixed. They are in the midst of some site maintenance.