Eamon Duffy: "Ten Popes who shook the world"

St. Irenaeus of Lyons · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:57 pm

Greetings,

I've read the introduction and the rather short chapters on three of the ten popes featured in Eamon Duffy's latest work (published 2011) on popes and it's been very good reading so far: Ten Popes who shook the world. The book arose from a series of ten talks on BBC Radio 4 in September 2007. The ten popes are St. Peter, St. Leo the Great, St. Gregory the Great, St. Gregory VII (Hildebrand), Innocent III, Paul III, Pius IX, Pius XII, John XXIII and John Paul II. Duffy writes that his choice of these ten is neither an attempt to nominate the ten best popes nor even the most influential, but that each of those chosen encapsulates one important aspect of the papacy.

Peace in and out,
Irenaeus

Doom · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:01 pm

Just yesterday I was wondering what Duffy was up to these days....I will have to check that out...

HalJordan · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:04 pm

Paul III over Pius V is an interesting choice.

Doom · **Posted:** Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:54 pm

HalJordan wrote:

Paul III over Pius V is an interesting choice.

"Duffy writes that his choice of these ten is neither an attempt to nominate the ten best popes nor even the most influential, but that each of those chosen encapsulates one important aspect of the papacy."

Pius V doesn't represent anything about the Papacy that isn't even better represented by Pius IX, or Innocent III.....but Paul III is.....quite unique in many respects...I think I know what he is going for here....

HalJordan · **Posted:** Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:15 pm

Understood

Bagheera · **Posted:** Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:31 pm

Sure are a lot of XXth century Popes in that list.

Doom · **Posted:** Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:47 pm

I've read it, it really does nothing more than just regurgitate 'Saints and Sinners'

Doom · **Posted:** Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:02 am

Bagheera wrote:

Sure are a lot of XXth century Popes in that list.

It is not a list of the greatest popes, or the most important, or the most influential, it is simply a list of 10 Popes that Duffy wanted to talk about. And as such, it really isn't surprising that the Popes he most wanted to talk about are the ones whose pontificate he personally witnessed.

Bagheera · **Posted:** Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:06 am

Santa Doom wrote:

Bagheera wrote:

Sure are a lot of XXth century Popes in that list.

It is not a list of the greatest popes, or the most important, or the most influential, it is simply a list of 10 Popes that Duffy wanted to talk about. And as such, it really isn't surprising that the Popes he most wanted to talk about are the ones whose pontificate he personally witnessed.

The title of the work would seem to indicate that the Popes in question were not simply those whom Duffy wanted to talk about. It's not Ten Popes Who Shook My World.

Doom · **Posted:** Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:11 am

Bagheera wrote:

Santa Doom wrote:

Bagheera wrote:

Sure are a lot of XXth century Popes in that list.

It is not a list of the greatest popes, or the most important, or the most influential, it is simply a list of 10 Popes that Duffy wanted to talk about. And as such, it really isn't surprising that the Popes he most wanted to talk about are the ones whose pontificate he personally witnessed.

The title of the work would seem to indicate that the Popes in question were not simply those whom Duffy wanted to talk about. It's not Ten Popes Who Shook My World.

Yes, they all 'shook the world', but he's not saying they did so more than any other Pope....arguing about which Pope is 'most important' or whatnot is a fruitless task, how does one define 'influence'? How does one measure it? So he avoids the conversation altogether, saying simply 'these are all very important and influential Popes, and here is their story'.....but if you were arguing about who is most influential, to a person living NOW, clearly the most influential Popes in the current era are the most recent ones....that's always going to be true. It's called 'Ten Popes Who Shook The World' not 'Ten Popes Who Shook the World More than any other Pope ever'.....there is a difference between making a list 'ten important Popes' and making a list 'the 10 most important Popes', he only claims to have done the former, not the latter.

p.falk · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:46 pm

Have any of you read the introduction to this book?
It's a pretty hard slam on the claims that we Catholics believe with respects to the papacy.

Doom · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 5:53 pm

p.falk wrote:

Have any of you read the introduction to this book?
It's a pretty hard slam on the claims that we Catholics believe with respects to the papacy.

I've read not just the introduction but the entire book, and in fact I've read every book Eamon Duffy has written.....and I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

p.falk · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:03 pm

Hi Doom,

From the introduction:

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

p.falk · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:04 pm

I made a thread of this in the Lyceum and then searched here to see if this book ever came up.
That's when I saw this thread.

Those comments aren't very friendly towards the integrity of the papal seat.

Doom · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:16 pm

p.falk wrote:

Those comments aren't very friendly towards the integrity of the papal seat.

Only if you hold to a very naive and simplistic understanding of Catholic history....

p.falk · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:16 pm

Let me complete one of those blurbs:

Quote:

The modern papacy, therefore, with its unchallenged jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, is not the product of a steady evolution from simple beginnings, the natural growth of some essential acorn into a mighty oak. 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.

p.falk · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:17 pm

Doom wrote:

p.falk wrote:

Those comments aren't very friendly towards the integrity of the papal seat.

Only if you hold to a very naive and simplistic understanding of Catholic history....

Don't go out of your way for me to sneer or anything...

I'm asking a serious question.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:19 pm

May I suggest that trying to carry this conversation on in two threads is not likely to work well?

Doom · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:19 pm

p.falk wrote:

Let me complete one of those blurbs:

Quote:

The modern papacy, therefore, with its unchallenged jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, is not the product of a steady evolution from simple beginnings, the natural growth of some essential acorn into a mighty oak. 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.

This is what is known as 'historical fact'....it is not disloyalty to the Church to admit that the Papacy has not always operated the way it does now, in fact John Paul II wrote an entire encyclical about that topic....

Doom · **Posted:** Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:22 pm

p.falk wrote:

Doom wrote:

p.falk wrote:

Those comments aren't very friendly towards the integrity of the papal seat.

Only if you hold to a very naive and simplistic understanding of Catholic history....

Don't go out of your way for me to sneer or anything...

I'm asking a serious question.

If your position is that there has never been any historical development in the office of the Papacy and the Papacy has always operated exactly the same as it does today, then yes I would call that 'naive and simplistic'.

Eamon Duffy: "Ten Popes who shook the world"

Who is online