A reflection on Protestant Papacy

[hizstory]

Okay, I grew up in and out of different protestant (or non-denominational) churches. In my middle twenties I converted to the Catholic Church. One item, of course, that my friends and family had a hard time with was the issue of the Papacy. I admit that growing up, I thought the idea of the Papacy was a completely unbiblical heresy and it almost caused me to convert to an Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church.

Now that I’ve had some years to reflect on things, it amazes me how many (not all) 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. For others, it is themselves; they are their own pope!

 

[Theophorus]

Okay, I grew up in and out of different protestant (or non-denominational) churches. In my middle twenties I converted to the Catholic Church. One item, of course, that my friends and family had a hard time with was the issue of the Papacy. I admit that growing up, I thought the idea of the Papacy was a completely unbiblical heresy and it almost caused me to convert to an Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church.

Now that I’ve had some years to reflect on things, it amazes me how many (not all) 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. For others, it is themselves; they are their own pope!

Thats how sola/solo scriptura looks to me! the other difference being Christ founded the papacy on Peter two thousand years ago. whereas the “protestant papacy” has existed for no more than five hundred years

 

[The_Sentry]

Okay, I grew up in and out of different protestant (or non-denominational) churches. In my middle twenties I converted to the Catholic Church. One item, of course, that my friends and family had a hard time with was the issue of the Papacy. I admit that growing up, I thought the idea of the Papacy was a completely unbiblical heresy and it almost caused me to convert to an Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church.

Now that I’ve had some years to reflect on things, it amazes me how many (not all) 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. For others, it is themselves; they are their own pope/U]!

This is so true! It does seem like many people who reject hierarchy always have one of their own. They just don’t always recognize it.

 

[cooterhein]

Okay, I grew up in and out of different protestant (or non-denominational) churches. In my middle twenties I converted to the Catholic Church. One item, of course, that my friends and family had a hard time with was the issue of the Papacy. I admit that growing up, I thought the idea of the Papacy was a completely unbiblical heresy and it almost caused me to convert to an Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church.

Now that I’ve had some years to reflect on things, it amazes me how many (not all) 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. For others, it is themselves; they are their own pope!

Suppose you were talking to a group of people that is self-governed in a completely non-religious context. What if you told them they’re filling the role of autocrat and imposing it on themselves? What if you said it’s incredibly obvious that they have a bunch of autocrats running around doing autocratic things (albeit on a very tiny scale), and you can’t believe they’re blind to it? You can see all the autocrats working within that system of self-government, going through the motions and (think about this for a second) doing all kinds of things that an autocrat would never be caught dead doing and refusing to do all kinds of things that autocrats always do, without fail. You can clearly see that they’re really just a bunch of very weak autocrats on the inside, and they probably know it, too- but everyone’s blinded to the truth. So you have to tell them: You might think you’re self-governed just because you’re carrying out a system of self-government, but in reality, you’re all autocrats.

You kind of just did that, but in a religious context.

It’s rather unfortunate.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This exists most strongly in Anglicanism. You can go to a parish that has been HEAVILY influenced by an anglo-catholic rector. The guy is super catholic and suddenly the parish has holy water, stations of the Cross (permanent ones), confessionals, Marian images, statues, incense, etc. Then another rector at a different parish is a 39 Articles devotee and an evangelical who has signed on to the Westminister Confession and likes JI Packer and John Stott and the place is austere and Protestant, almost Calvinist. A priest/rector can heavily influence a parish and he ends up being the guru.

But sadly if a Catholic parish has a super liberal pastor, the pastor can be his own pope, too, something we forget about. I’ve seen that happen!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Suppose you were talking to a group of people that is self-governed in a completely non-religious context. What if you told them they’re filling the role of autocrat and imposing it on themselves? What if you said it’s incredibly obvious that they have a bunch of autocrats running around doing autocratic things (albeit on a very tiny scale), and you can’t believe they’re blind to it? You can see all the autocrats working within that system of self-government, going through the motions and (think about this for a second) doing all kinds of things that an autocrat would never be caught dead doing and refusing to do all kinds of things that autocrats always do, without fail. You can clearly see that they’re really just a bunch of very weak autocrats on the inside, and they probably know it, too- but everyone’s blinded to the truth. So you have to tell them: You might think you’re self-governed just because you’re carrying out a system of self-government, but in reality, you’re all autocrats.

You kind of just did that, but in a religious context.

It’s rather unfortunate.

You lost me about half way through. However, were do you get the Idea that the Pope is an autocratic ruler?

 

[John1]

Okay, I grew up in and out of different protestant (or non-denominational) churches. In my middle twenties I converted to the Catholic Church. One item, of course, that my friends and family had a hard time with was the issue of the Papacy. I admit that growing up, I thought the idea of the Papacy was a completely unbiblical heresy and it almost caused me to convert to an Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church.

Now that I’ve had some years to reflect on things, it amazes me how many (not all) 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. For others, it is themselves; they are their own pope!

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.

 

[hizstory]

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.

I wasn’t really seeking an answer, just pointing out something that seems obvious once someone comes Home across the Tiber.

 

[hizstory]

Suppose you were talking to a group of people that is self-governed in a completely non-religious context. What if you told them they’re filling the role of autocrat and imposing it on themselves? What if you said it’s incredibly obvious that they have a bunch of autocrats running around doing autocratic things (albeit on a very tiny scale), and you can’t believe they’re blind to it? You can see all the autocrats working within that system of self-government, going through the motions and (think about this for a second) doing all kinds of things that an autocrat would never be caught dead doing and refusing to do all kinds of things that autocrats always do, without fail. You can clearly see that they’re really just a bunch of very weak autocrats on the inside, and they probably know it, too- but everyone’s blinded to the truth. So you have to tell them: You might think you’re self-governed just because you’re carrying out a system of self-government, but in reality, you’re all autocrats.

You kind of just did that, but in a religious context.

It’s rather unfortunate.

The truth is rather unfortunate? And yes, I believe that anyone who goes about life living according to their own “self-governing” rules is an autocrat at the smallest level It’s just part of man’s fallen nature to want to be in charge of one’s own life.

 

[Nine_Two]

Among Protestants, Presbyterians don’t have a “Pope” set up. In fact my understanding is they went out of their way to avoid that. It is avoidable. A monarch is not necessary to rule a church, it’s just the most common setup.

 

[cooterhein]

And yes, I believe that anyone who goes about life living according to their own “self-governing” rules is an autocrat at the smallest level

That’s the part you got wrong.

An autocrat is a person who possesses absolute and unrestricted authority over every other person affiliated with the institution that he has control of. In a self-governing body, no one possesses absolute and unrestricted authority.

You didn’t really describe a self-governing body just now, though. You described an individual who goes about life living according to their own self-governing rules. This imples that you’re talking about a lone individual who is not affiliated with or working together with any other Christians in the process of carrying out some kind of church governance. If that is the case, you aren’t talking about a self-governing body and you aren’t even talking about a Protestant- you’re talking about someone who isn’t involved in any kind of church. As long as we’re matching examples of church governance to their secular partners in government, that would best exemplify the attitude of an anarchist, which is all the way at the opposite extreme of autocrat. Again, though, just in case you get confused- if this is the person you attempted to describe, that would not match the description of Protestants who work together in self-governing bodies.

 

[cooterhein]

You lost me about half way through. However, were do you get the Idea that the Pope is an autocratic ruler?

He’s not actually an autocratic ruler in a secular government, but that is the system of government that most closely resembles his role and place within his religious institution.

It mostly has to do with the absolute and unrestricted authority that he has over everyone else in the CC. With the exception of the Mormon president and certain cults, there aren’t all that many examples of religious leaders that exercise this kind of authority. Even in the East, Orthodox Christians will be very quick to tell you why the Patriarch is not a pope. (But since an Orthodox Christian has already made a contribution to this thread, I won’t be the one who goes into detail about that). Non-Catholic Christians in the West have way more restrictions on the authority they have over one another than the pope, the Patriarch, and even the most junior bishop of either ancient church. It’s absurd to say they’re all tiny popes.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Get ready for a blitzkrieg with this post, Nine! Duck! Incoming!

Among Protestants, Presbyterians don’t have a “Pope” set up. In fact my understanding is they went out of their way to avoid that. It is avoidable. A monarch is not necessary to rule a church, it’s just the most common setup.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

He’s not actually an autocratic ruler in a secular government, but that is the system of government that most closely resembles his role and place within his religious institution.

It mostly has to do with the absolute and unrestricted authority that he has over everyone else in the CC. With the exception of the Mormon president and certain cults, there aren’t all that many examples of religious leaders that exercise this kind of authority. Even in the East, Orthodox Christians will be very quick to tell you why the Patriarch is not a pope. (But since an Orthodox Christian has already made a contribution to this thread, I won’t be the one who goes into detail about that). Non-Catholic Christians in the West have way more restrictions on the authority they have over one another than the pope, the Patriarch, and even the most junior bishop of either ancient church. It’s absurd to say they’re all tiny popes.

I still fail to see how the role of the Pope and his authority in the chruch can be described as an autocractic role. the Pope does not have absolute and unrestricted authority. that is a falsehood.

 

[mortonsam]

Okay, I grew up in and out of different protestant (or non-denominational) churches. In my middle twenties I converted to the Catholic Church. One item, of course, that my friends and family had a hard time with was the issue of the Papacy. I admit that growing up, I thought the idea of the Papacy was a completely unbiblical heresy and it almost caused me to convert to an Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church.

Now that I’ve had some years to reflect on things, it amazes me how many (not all) 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. For others, it is themselves; they are their own pope!

I don’t know how many churches you attended, but your opinion is very skewed. Mainline Protestants do not personally interpret Scripture.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Okay, I grew up in and out of different protestant (or non-denominational) churches. In my middle twenties I converted to the Catholic Church. One item, of course, that my friends and family had a hard time with was the issue of the Papacy. I admit that growing up, I thought the idea of the Papacy was a completely unbiblical heresy and it almost caused me to convert to an Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church.

Now that I’ve had some years to reflect on things, it amazes me how many (not all) 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. For others, it is themselves; they are their own pope!

I think this is particularly true where congregants are poorly educated in their religious tradition, or just poorly educated in general, or both. They look to the Pastor as they guy who went to seminary and has a master’s degree and thus “knows it all.” (And of course they’d be appalled if they really knew how little education their pastor received in seminary; that’s true for both Protestants and Catholics, imo.)

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.

So I guess it depends on your definition of “many.”

 

[Stephen168]

I think this is particularly true where congregants are poorly educated in their religious tradition, or just poorly educated in general, or both. They look to the Pastor as they guy who went to seminary and has a master’s degree and thus “knows it all.” (And of course they’d be appalled if they really knew how little education their pastor received in seminary; that’s true for both Protestants and Catholics, imo.)

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

 

[Nicea325]

Okay, I grew up in and out of different protestant (or non-denominational) churches. In my middle twenties I converted to the Catholic Church. One item, of course, that my friends and family had a hard time with was the issue of the Papacy. I admit that growing up, I thought the idea of the Papacy was a completely unbiblical heresy and it almost caused me to convert to an Orthodox Church instead of the Catholic Church.

Now that I’ve had some years to reflect on things, it amazes me how many (not all) 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. For others, it is themselves; they are their own pope!

Precisely! It is called the classic case of double-standards. That is what I have told many non-Catholics. If your church has a pastor and he/she leaves,retires,resigns,dies,etc does it mean the position/office cease to exist? I doubt it! Second,if the RCC position of the papacy is false,then why does your church even have the office/position and successors?

 

[hizstory]

Where is the smilie for wanting to bang my head against the wall . Cooter, as in the other thread we communicated on, you’re making my statements out to be more technical and complicated than I intended them to be. I’m not talking about official “governance”, either in the religious or the secular world. I’m just pointing out the similarities between the Catholic and Protestant systems that some people overlook (some people on this thread have noticed the same things).

As far as the poster that inquired about the churches I’ve attended; here is a list.

Church of Christ (non-denominational)
United Methodist
Churches of Christ in Christian Union (was an active member).

I also have a friend that grew up Pentacostal and my parents are now very active members of a Southern Baptist church.

Clear your minds, lay off the coffee, and take a deep breath. I wasn’t intending to start WW III

 

[cooterhein]

I still fail to see how the role of the Pope and his authority in the chruch can be described as an autocractic role. the Pope does not have absolute and unrestricted authority. that is a falsehood.

Why do you say that? In what ways is the pope’s authority restricted?

Don’t you believe in the supreme authority of the pontiff? I thought that was a requirement. Other requirements seem to be…

• Prior to their consecration, all bishops must have papal approval and take an oath of fidelity to him. (This wasn’t required in the first millennium, although papal approval did happen sometimes. Now it’s required).
• Ecumenical councils can only be called by a pope, and it is the approval of the pope that makes these councils ecumenical.
• The pope is the only member of the CC that can “bind the faithful.”
• CCC para. 882-883: “'For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head. As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church, but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”
• CCC para. 937: "“The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.”

What Protestant claims- by divine institution, no less- to have supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of any soul? What Protestant has ever claimed full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, or even just one congregation? It doesn’t happen on a large scale, and it doesn’t happen on a small scale, either. Protestants have never claimed to exercise supreme, full, immediate, and universal power over anything or anyone.

These are the things that make the pope the pope. It also makes him different from every Protestant that’s ever existed.