A reflection on Protestant Papacy

[cooterhein]

1. Yes, you and I and the pope are equal in absolute value before God.

Agreed.

But much of Protestantism extends that to mean that we each have identical roles.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Protestant pastors and teachers will frequently talk about the various parts of the Body, the different functions of each part, and how no part should think their role is intrinsically better or more valuable than another. It’s all one body, so the body gets along best if the different parts don’t hurt or belittle one another.

So instead of identical roles, I think there’s more of an identical value…and an emphasis on making sure all the parts are working and moving. One of the more popular illustrations among pastors is that of a sporting event. They feel like some people in the church (particularly those who step up in leadership roles) are like the players on a football field that are exhausted and desperately need some rest. Then the rest of the church is like the fans in the stands who are desperately in need of some exercise. The general message is that everyone needs to get on the field and be active, but we also know that the quarterback needs to have a good relationship with his o-line and that their work is just as valuable despite the disparity in paychecks and the fact that they aren’t expected to handle the ball. And yeah, some people are “skill players” while others are pass-rushers. They’re different, but they’re all important.

I think it differs from the average Catholic parish because the laity is encouraged to be on the team with the pastor as a teammate, but that doesn’t mean everyone is a quarterback. I’m not sure what the Catholic priest would be in this situation…maybe the quarterback? Maybe the Magisterium is the coaching staff, or the Commissioner? Idk…sometimes I over-extend analogies.

Therefore Luther’s opinion on doctrine is equal to the pope’s and each person weighs the arguments of each and decides which holds more merit.

I think we do this by lowering the status of the pope (in our eyes) rather than elevating Luther to that level. Luther’s still just a monk. He’s not the vicar of Christ- no one ever claimed that he was. But we also think the pope isn’t the vicar of Christ, either. Although he says he is, and that makes him quite a bit different from Luther.

What boggles MY mind is how protestants can think that way and still believe that God loves us like his own children (who abandons their children with nothing but a book to guide them?

I would suggest that we do the same thing the Jews always did when God left them with no reading material beyond the Scriptures…which they wound up calling the Word of God.

Granted, they had (and still have) the Mishnah. But they created that, and no one claims any divine origin. Additionally, it was (and still is) referred to as “second in authority” to Scripture.

God repeatedly said He loved them. He called (and still calls) them His chosen people. But He allowed their religious leaders to be in extremely grave error at certain times- Jesus told them so.

Does that mean God loved the Jews any less? Does that mean He abandoned them? I say no.

1. It WOULD be true of popes if popes were just really lucky and skilled politicians who managed to get elected in a conclave.

At certain points in history, money and family had a lot to do with it as well. The de Medici family…wow, I’m glad they’re finally gone.

Catholics don’t believe that it is the human wisdom of a pope that makes him infallible.

Of course.

We believe it is a Grace that God grants to the OFFICE for the sake of the Church out of love. Absolutely, protestants find the truth in Scripture sometimes (I’ll even say on most of the critical issues). But being a little bit wrong in matters of eternity is kinda like being a little bit pregnant!

If I may extend the analogy of pregnancy…supposing that a woman is pregnant, we believe it works out best when problems are quickly identified and dealt with, for the sake of the mother and the baby. We believe it’s worse for a mother to say “Nothing can possibly go wrong.” If it does work out, the mother is very lucky. But when it doesn’t, you get things like Reformations.

In my experience, protestants believe that the Holy Spirit will guide them to a correct understanding to Scripture, but they seem not to notice when sincere and dedicated believers around them (also presumably guided by the Holy Spirit) sometimes come to different and contradictory conclusions. How does that NOT rock your confidence in your ability to rightly comprehend Scripture?

I think most Protestants will ask the Holy Spirit to guide them and help their thought process be what He wants it to be, but it’s a rare Protestant who will claim that God protected them from error. It’s more of a helping situation and less of a protection thing. We do notice when equally sincere Protestants come to different conclusions, but we tend to blame some part of their logical process, lack of information, or an erroneous presupposition rather than a failure on the part of the Holy Spirit…who we don’t really expect to protect us from error in the first place.

If we did, we’d be a lot more similar to a pope speaking ex cathedra.

As for my confidence in my ability to interpret Scripture, divine protection from error isn’t available, so the conclusions are only as good as the process and the information you have to work with. Either of these may be imperfect at times, but we just have to work on improving those things and do the best we can. If God had designated a perpetual office that’s protected from error and can tell us things that are beyond our ability to reason to with the material on hand, we’d take that. But we believe He hasn’t, so basically, this is the only game in town.

 

[cooterhein]

It is the RCC failure to hold it together? And what excuse is there for Protestanism to even blow it bigger by not directing Christianity at all? How many thousands of different denominations?

Is it the failure of the RCC to hold it together? I would ask a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. What excuse do we have for blowing it even bigger? We don’t share the same goals, and what we do is consistent with our goals but not yours. How many thousands of denominations? 30 plus or something like that.

This is the kind of response that makes me a little

Here’s why. There’s a couple of implications here. It’s almost as if you, as a Catholic, have completely given up on the idea that the Reformation was an example of terrible disunity in the West and you need to try and rectify this by bringing the West back under the control of the papacy. From a certain point of view, it’s almost as if the CC tried to do this, failed, and has conceded that it won’t happen.

Instead, the implication I’m getting is that a good deal of the West is always going to be under Protestant control and you’re ok with this at some level, but as long as we’re doing that, you’d be more ok with it if we start having a little more unity.

Kind of like you guys. Because at some point, the Protestant Reformation stopped being an example of disunity for the Catholic Church in the West…and then the CC became perfectly united again, but without undoing the dis-unifying event. (Btw, that does not make sense to me at all). And now, this whole situation in the West isn’t your problem anymore. It’s all ours.

 

[cooterhein]

Excuse me, I meant to say 30k plus in the previous post. It’s too late to edit now, though.

Edit- although now that I look at it again, it kind of worked to begin with.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And make no mistake, there were indeed Catholics, called the spirituale who were sympathetic to many of the Erasmian humanist principles and then also sympathetic to the Reformers like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Bucer, etc. They weren’t completely 100% sold on all Reformation rhetoric but they shared some big ideas of reform and were friendly to Protestants. Read about guys like Johann Gropper, Gasparo Contarini, Cristoforo Madruzzo, Juan de Valdes, Reginald Pole, Giovanni Pietro Carafa, John Fisher, etc.

These men were Catholics, some bishops, some priests, some theologians, and as spirituale they were focused on God’s free gifts of grace. They read Martin Luther with enthusiasm and interest. They were Augustinian in their views of a depraved and deeply sinful humanity that could only be saved by God’s free gifts of grace and that works could not play an important enough role to be salvific, etc. They were focused on the graces of the Holy Spirit and the relationship with Christ over the works and penitential system. They thought the hierarchy was corrupt to the core and needed major overhauls. These were the intellectually honest Catholics of the day who wanted to openly deal with the Protestants. They weren’t into the rhetoric you’ll hear in Catholic apologetics today. They were highly charitable, met with Reformers, and sought change from within. Some of them had to leave Rome and “get out of Dodge” for fear of their lives, some died unsuccessful chewed up by the system, and some flat out failed.

I’m reading about Johann Gropper in Diarmaid MacCulloch’s amazing book “The Reformation” right now. It’s exciting to read. Gropper tried to deal with the Protestants.

MacCulloch writes:

“Gropper (the Catholic) argued that when a human being met God on judgement day, even the combination of the garce which the Church’s sacraments conveyed and what remained of merit in human beings would not stand up to divine scrutiny. This combination was not negligible, he said, but it would necessarily have to be supplemented by the righteousness of Christ, Gid in his mercy would all this ‘alien righteousness’ to be imputed to the unworthy sinful human through grace. What Gropper had done was to find a way of squaring the circle of the medieval theology of merit with Luther’s theology of imputed grace…”

Of course the Protestants and Catholics couldn’t agree on the Eucharist and other issues at the Regensburg Colloquy and things fell apart. They almost achieved unity between Protestants and Catholics. Imagine that…

Would that we had more of that spirit with Catholics today instead of pointing out the 30,000 denominations and poking fun at disunity and schism and differences. It’d be edifying to see such attempts and reunion or at bare minimum and mutual respect and understanding rather than chiding and constant goading a fight…

Is it the failure of the RCC to hold it together? I would ask a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. What excuse do we have for blowing it even bigger? We don’t share the same goals, and what we do is consistent with our goals but not yours. How many thousands of denominations? 30 plus or something like that.

This is the kind of response that makes me a little

Here’s why. There’s a couple of implications here. It’s almost as if you, as a Catholic, have completely given up on the idea that the Reformation was an example of terrible disunity in the West and you need to try and rectify this by bringing the West back under the control of the papacy. From a certain point of view, it’s almost as if the CC tried to do this, failed, and has conceded that it won’t happen.

Instead, the implication I’m getting is that a good deal of the West is always going to be under Protestant control and you’re ok with this at some level, but as long as we’re doing that, you’d be more ok with it if we start having a little more unity.

Kind of like you guys. Because at some point, the Protestant Reformation stopped being an example of disunity for the Catholic Church in the West…and then the CC became perfectly united again, but without undoing the dis-unifying event. (Btw, that does not make sense to me at all). And now, this whole situation in the West isn’t your problem anymore. It’s all ours.

 

[hizstory]

And make no mistake, there were indeed Catholics, called the spirituale who were sympathetic to many of the Erasmian humanist principles and then also sympathetic to the Reformers like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Bucer, etc. They weren’t completely 100% sold on all Reformation rhetoric but they shared some big ideas of reform and were friendly to Protestants. Read about guys like Johann Gropper, Gasparo Contarini, Cristoforo Madruzzo, Juan de Valdes, Reginald Pole, Giovanni Pietro Carafa, John Fisher, etc.

These men were Catholics, some bishops, some priests, some theologians, and as spirituale they were focused on God’s free gifts of grace. They read Martin Luther with enthusiasm and interest. They were Augustinian in their views of a depraved and deeply sinful humanity that could only be saved by God’s free gifts of grace and that works could not play an important enough role to be salvific, etc. They were focused on the graces of the Holy Spirit and the relationship with Christ over the works and penitential system. They thought the hierarchy was corrupt to the core and needed major overhauls. These were the intellectually honest Catholics of the day who wanted to openly deal with the Protestants. They weren’t into the rhetoric you’ll hear in Catholic apologetics today. They were highly charitable, met with Reformers, and sought change from within. Some of them had to leave Rome and “get out of Dodge” for fear of their lives, some died unsuccessful chewed up by the system, and some flat out failed.

I’m reading about Johann Gropper in Diarmaid MacCulloch’s amazing book “The Reformation” right now. It’s exciting to read. Gropper tried to deal with the Protestants.

MacCulloch writes:

“Gropper (the Catholic) argued that when a human being met God on judgement day, even the combination of the garce which the Church’s sacraments conveyed and what remained of merit in human beings would not stand up to divine scrutiny. This combination was not negligible, he said, but it would necessarily have to be supplemented by the righteousness of Christ, Gid in his mercy would all this ‘alien righteousness’ to be imputed to the unworthy sinful human through grace. What Gropper had done was to find a way of squaring the circle of the medieval theology of merit with Luther’s theology of imputed grace…”

Of course the Protestants and Catholics couldn’t agree on the Eucharist and other issues at the Regensburg Colloquy and things fell apart. They almost achieved unity between Protestants and Catholics. Imagine that…

Would that we had more of that spirit with Catholics today instead of pointing out the 30,000 denominations and poking fun at disunity and schism and differences. It’d be edifying to see such attempts and reunion or at bare minimum and mutual respect and understanding rather than chiding and constant goading a fight…

I’m glad you pointed out that there were reformers within the Catholic Church. In fact, if my memory serves me correct, the internal reformation movement began at least a 100 years before Luther. Yes, the Church hiearchy was corrupt at different points in the past and one could easily make the argument that with several scandals going on today, there is corruption right now. However, given the occasions in the gospels in which Jesus spoke and prayed for unity and St. Paul’s statement “let there be no division among you” the fact that there are 30,000 denominations is a legitimate point in my opinion.

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry, I don’t understand.

The OP says every Church has a Pope of some sort.

Presbyterians don’t.

 

[JonNC]

I think in most mainline Protestant denominations, people are basically asked to think for themselves. I’d say that Pastors exercise a great deal of administrative power within the parish, but really don’t have a role that’s as influential as the Pope in religious matters and thought.

Hi Dave,
I know this is a bit late, but, as a Lutheran, in matters of idiaphora, you are correct. In matters of doctrine, I am not asked or encouraged to think for myself.

*This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… * - Martin Chemnitz

Jon

 

[Stephen168]

So you have been to a Protestant and a Catholic Seminary? Or are you laying the groundwork to be your own personal Pope?
Dave Noonan;7325092:

Yes, I have a master’s degree from a Catholic seminary and have taken classes at various Protestant seminaries.

Cool

An honest question—I’d really like to understand this as an outsider. If Fr. McBrien holds unreliable and dissident views, then why does he hold such a prominent post at a Catholic university? It seems to me that if someone taught something contrary to core denominational views at say, a Southern Baptist seminary, that person would be out like a light–tenure or no. I also personally know a woman who was fired from Notre Dame for her personal views on women’s ordination–views which were not part of her teaching or publications. (I’m not saying that they SHOULD have people on their faculty that disagree with Catholic teaching, I’m just trying to understand how this works.) Is it that Catholics are more open to or tolerant of internal dissent? How is this standard applied? I’ve always been confused about this.

I wonder why You had to ask?

 

[hizstory]

The OP says every Church has a Pope of some sort.

Presbyterians don’t.

Once again, you seem to misunderstand what I was getting at in my OP. Perhaps, substituting the word Authority for pope would clarify things. If a presbyterian pastor doesn’t have authority over his congregation, than I guess the congregants look to themselves as the authority.

 

[JonNC]

Once again, you seem to misunderstand what I was getting at in my OP. Perhaps, substituting the word Authority for pope would clarify things. If a presbyterian pastor doesn’t have authority over his congregation, than I guess the congregants look to themselves as the authority.

Or, they have a set of confessions, that both pastor and laity must hold to.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Or “Articles” that they must hold to…39 of them!

Or, they have a set of confessions, that both pastor and laity must hold to.

Jon

 

[mark_a]

The OP says every Church has a Pope of some sort.

Presbyterians don’t.

Ok. Gotcha. Thanks.

It seems like semantics to me, much like we call money a false god or an idol.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes…you’re quoting semantics and look at us on the other thread when you talk about divorce and marriage, etc.

Ok. Gotcha. Thanks.

It seems like semantics to me, much like we call money a false god or an idol.

 

[mark_a]

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes…you’re quoting semantics and look at us on the other thread when you talk about divorce and marriage, etc.

Which just goes to show ya, if I talk long enough I’ll even disagree with myself!

Which thread?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Cool

I wonder why You had to ask?

Because I still don’t understand it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hi Dave,
I know this is a bit late, but, as a Lutheran, in matters of idiaphora, you are correct. In matters of doctrine, I am not asked or encouraged to think for myself.

*This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… * - Martin Chemnitz

Jon

Maybe we have different understandings of “thinking for oneself.” I think maybe we all have to weigh what the church has taught over time and how we think about that today?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I cannot speak for Jon really but I think essentially the crux is that Protestants really shouldn’t be thinking for themselves either but from a common understanding of their communion’s theology, soteriology, eschatology, and agreed belief system within their polity. In other words, just because Luther spoke of the freedom of the Christian and because the Lutherans no longer have the papal magisterium, they still have the Augsburg Confession, the Large and Small catechism of Luther, the writings of Melancthon and Chemnitz and company, and they have a firm theology protected and guided by Lutheran theologicans for centuries. A Lutheran should stick to the framework of their agreed and firm theology or else one isn’t really Lutheran and should probably look elsewhere. Just like Anglicans…there is a great freedom in Christ and yet the 39 Articles, the councils, the writings of Anglican divines like Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes and Thomas Cranmer as well as the Caroline divines and Oxford Movement Tractarians should all weigh in to one’s beliefs and opinions without a total libertine approach.

Maybe we have different understandings of “thinking for oneself.” I think maybe we all have to weigh what the church has taught over time and how we think about that today?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I cannot speak for Jon really but I think essentially the crux is that Protestants really shouldn’t be thinking for themselves either but from a common understanding of their communion’s theology, soteriology, eschatology, and agreed belief system within their polity. In other words, just because Luther spoke of the freedom of the Christian and because the Lutherans no longer have the papal magisterium, they still have the Augsburg Confession, the Large and Small catechism of Luther, the writings of Melancthon and Chemnitz and company, and they have a firm theology protected and guided by Lutheran theologicans for centuries. A Lutheran should stick to the framework of their agreed and firm theology or else one isn’t really Lutheran and should probably look elsewhere. Just like Anglicans…there is a great freedom in Christ and yet the 39 Articles, the councils, the writings of Anglican divines like Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrewes and Thomas Cranmer as well as the Caroline divines and Oxford Movement Tractarians should all weigh in to one’s beliefs and opinions without a total libertine approach.

I hear what you’re saying–there are certainly a lot of things to consider–and I haven’t been trying to advocate for “a total libertine approach.”

But here’s the gist of the OP: “non-Catholic Christians fail to see a papacy in their own churches. For most, it is their local pastor that they go to in order to settle disputes or interpretations of Bible passages. The Catholic Pope simply performs this role on a much larger scale.”

So the point of the OP is the role the pastor plays in the local congregation. I certainly wouldn’t think to go to my local pastor with questions about questions of biblical interpretation or theology, though I might (or might not) ask their opinion–and they would be fine with that. I don’t think a pastor somehow has a special talent for interpretation that I don’t have–although there may be some issues that they know more about than I do. Or vice versa. Probably like many people here, I can do my own research and reach my own conclusions–based of course on the relevant sources.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I can see your point to a certain degree. I think Catholics want 100% total metaphysical certitude on every single issue of spirituality while many Protestants are happy feeling they’re doing the right thing with the basics, the big issues, and there are other issues that they can agree to disagree about. Catholics want every stone unturned and total knowledge about all moral issues, all theological points, etc. Protestants most definitely have a more relaxed attitude generally about adiaphora and it seems to Catholics there is no such thing as adiaphora! Catholicism approaches truth from Matthew 16:18 and they see the “gates of hell not prevailing” as meaning that not one shread of wrong interpretation or incorrect theology or bad moral teachings will ever, ever ever enter the Church or else the gates of hell have won. Many Protestants I know feel the gates of hell prevailing is more related to salvation and “in the long run.” In other words, satan can have his little victories for a while but over time Christ wins out and Christians are victorious in Christ. The Reformation would be a good example.

I see the point you’re making. Protestants don’t see their pastors as infallible or perfect go-to’s in any crisis or dilemna. I understand what you’re saying and you’re reasonable to have such a position given your faith.

Blessings, Dave

I hear what you’re saying–there are certainly a lot of things to consider–and I haven’t been trying to advocate for “a total libertine approach.”

But here’s the gist of the OP: “non-Catholic Christians fail to see a papacy in their own churches. For most, it is their local pastor that they go to in order to settle disputes or interpretations of Bible passages. The Catholic Pope simply performs this role on a much larger scale.”

So the point of the OP is the role the pastor plays in the local congregation. I certainly wouldn’t think to go to my local pastor with questions about questions of biblical interpretation or theology, though I might (or might not) ask their opinion–and they would be fine with that. I don’t think a pastor somehow has a special talent for interpretation that I don’t have–although there may be some issues that they know more about than I do. Or vice versa. Probably like many people here, I can do my own research and reach my own conclusions–based of course on the relevant sources.

 

[elvisman]

Hi Hizstory,

I’ve noticed the same thing! I’ve also noticed that a lot of the “non-denominational” churches have their own dogmas, so in a sense, each one of them are a denomination by definition. Of Course historically, I think that the Pope was considered as “Christ in human flesh”, and I don’t know of any of the mainstream protestant denominations believe that about their leaders. There are some, like David Koresh and Jim Jones and a few others, but not that many, relatively speaking. The history of God’s church starts out with just a few people that had faith in God and became a huge Jewish political system that had lost touch with the Truth and their leaders were imposing religious burdens on their congregations that even they themselves couldn’t carry. Then Jesus came, initially for the Jews, but then also included all gentile believers as well, and began His church which began as a relatively small numbers of believers and has now become a huge Christain political system. The corruption that is evident in the Christian community today is probably not that different in motive than that of the earlier system. As any organization grows, it seems clear, that at some point there is a disconnect with some of the members of the organization. The causations of the problems in any large organization frquently seem to be same, i.e. pride, arrogance, ignorance, corruption, etc… How do you prevent this from happening? Even in Heaven, from what I can gather from reading the Bible, had some problems with the organization. Satan led a group of angels in a revolt. The Bible says Satan’s fall was due to pride, because he wanted to be worshipped. Satan led other angels in the rebellion, so that implies that they had some problems with the organization in Heaven. The question you brought up is very interesting, but I don’t know that it has an easy answer. Of course I may have went off on a tangent.

**And, again John - I don’t know where you get your information. You continue to misrepresent the Catholic Church with your bogus charges on every thread.

The Church does not believe the Pope to be Christ in human flesh. In persona Christi means that he acts in the person of Christ - not that he is a reincarnation of him. He is the Vicar of Christ - Christ’s chief agent, not christ himself.