Some time ago I corresponded with a British Unitarian. The practice of beginning a service by lighting a chalice was mentioned. He remarked that it was not long ago when such practices were regarded as examples of idolatrous "popery" and, as such, frowned upon. That unfortunate term "popery" is often used within the reformed churches to refer to certain traditional practices within churches on the other side of the reformation divide such as the use of "holy" pictures. Throughout the history of the Christian Church there has been debate as to whether "holy" pictures are a bona fide aid to religious practice or an idolatrous distraction. The destruction of the icons in 6th century Byzantium was an example of this ongoing debate. Islam takes an extreme view on such practices but Turkish art does often represent the human form. Within the Christian tradition the Protestant position is extreme, firstly in the sense that it very strongly holds that such practices involve much more harm than good and secondly in that it involves a minority viewpoint within the Christian Church as a whole. This minority status does not, of course, mean that it is wrong in any absolute sense. However I question whether this stance involves a victory over "popery" in any meaningful sense.
St. Peter is often referred to as the first Bishop of Rome. I know little of the structure of the original Christian community in Rome. Was it recognisably Episcopalian? What word at the time corresponded to the modern word "Bishop"? However Roman Catholics frequently refer to Peter as the first Pope. This is untrue. The proper Latin title for the Chief Priest of the Roman Pagan State religion is the "Pontific Maximums". The word "Pope" is an abbreviation, essentially a term of endearment. The first Pontific Maximums was appointed by King Romulus of Rome in 753BC.
Around the 4th century AD the offices of Christian Bishop of Rome and that of the Pontific Maximums were amalgamated as part of the deal by which Christianity was to become the only permitted religion in the Roman world. The doctrine of the Trinity became a central Orthodox Christian dogma as part of the same package. Therefore "popery", properly understood, must surely refer, more accurately, to Trinitarianism rather than to God's presumed preferences in interior design and such matters. If the rejection of "popery" is important to the Protestant then a minimalist taste in church decor is a very superficial attempt at distancing himself from "Rome", whatever theological validity such opinions might have. The emergence of the Papacy as a Christian phenomenon and the doctrine of the Trinity as a central Christian dogma do not just coincide but are part of the same package. Therefore I assert that if "popery" is to be used as other than an almost meaningless term of abuse its rejection must surely entail the exploration of Unitarian possibilities.
On a more serious note one of the most basic differences between the various catholic churches, Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc., and the Reformed churches is that while both categories of churches regard scripture as a source of divine authority, the catholic churches also regard Sacred Tradition as an equally valid source of divinely inspired doctrine.
Islam regards the Koran as the infallible Word of God and hold that it was dictated by the Angel Gabriel to Mohamed when the Archangel brought it to Earth from the right hand side of the throne of Allah. While Christians regard the Bible in a somewhat similar manner, the processes by which it came into existence as a completed work were more complex and involved a much greater level of human input, which input, it is believed, was guided by the hand of God.
Now, the processes that lead to the creation of canonical scripture overlap to a very large extent with those that created what Catholics regard as divinely inspired Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is sometimes described as the "teachings of the Fathers of the Church" and largely stems from the first six centuries of the Christian era.
I, as a Unitarian, regard traditions of any sort as possible useful sources of wisdom, but no tradition could be regarded as divinely inspired dogma, not open to question. Similarly any work of bona fife scripture must be regarded as a source of wisdom but this respect must be tempered with a certain amount of wholesome skepticism.
However Protestants regard the Bible as being a divinely inspired source of information. How do they come to this conclusion? If they are to be consistent they must surely either also accept a divinely inspired Tradition in somewhat the same vein as the various catholic churches or reject the narrowly defined form that "the Bible as divine inspiration" takes within both the catholic and reformed churches. I freely admit that I am no expert on theology but it seems to me that the fundamentals that Protestantism springs from are based on somewhat shaky philosophical foundations. While Unitarians may differ very significantly from Catholics in their beliefs and on the grounds for those beliefs, Catholicism contains fewer internal contradictions than the reformed churches. At least the above observations would suggest this. Is it possible that philosophical consistency would require the reformed churches to redefine themselves either as neo-Catholics or as Unitarians?
Brendan Burke MA(Phil). Cork, September 2005