Can you be Protestant and accept papal primacy?

[Peter_J]

My priest was an Anglican Papalist before converting to the Catholic church through the Ordinariate.

I would guess that many were.

At this point, if someone said “I’m Anglo-Papalist” the question that would come to my mind (even if I didn’t say it) would be “So why haven’t you joined the Ordinariate?”

 

[GKC]

Just so.

Plus, in my last post I forgot to say that there are also “Anglo-Orthodox”.

Several rectors ago, my parish had one such. Resulted in our altar crucifix being an iconic one.

 

[GKC]

My priest was an Anglican Papalist before converting to the Catholic church through the Ordinariate. I also know of an Anglo-Catholic church in my area that mentions the Pope (and the Archbishop of Canterbury for good measure) during the Eucharistic Prayers.

My immediate past, now deceased, rector, did the same, as to the Pope, and the Ecumenical Patriarch,during the prayers for the whole state of Christ’s Church.

 

[GKC]

I would guess that many were.

At this point, if someone said “I’m Anglo-Papalist” the question that would come to my mind (even if I didn’t say it) would be “So why haven’t you joined the Ordinariate?”

I’d ask it.

 

[KathleenGee]

So good to hear of such who also include the pope in their prayers.

 

[steido01]

Several rectors ago, my parish had one such. Resulted in our altar crucifix being an iconic one.

Lucky.

 

[GKC]

Lucky.

It was done before my time, but I think it was made by a member of the parish. It is very impressive.

 

[steido01]

It was done before my time, but I think it was made by a member of the parish. It is very impressive.

The church I’m currently at lost the good stuff in a fire. The new building is a bunker. A charismatic wave burned through the area (Catholic churches too) during the rebuild. They went with empty crosses to ‘better focus on the worship.’ It’s difficult. Plenty of crucifixes around the church, but the big cross is empty and the processional is an artsy mostly-empty thing. Maybe I’ll make one. What church could refuse a handmade gift?

 

[GKC]

The church I’m currently at lost the good stuff in a fire. The new building is a bunker. A charismatic wave burned through the area (Catholic churches too) during the rebuild. They went with empty crosses to ‘better focus on the worship.’ It’s difficult. Plenty of crucifixes around the church, but the big cross is empty and the processional is an artsy mostly-empty thing. Maybe I’ll make one. What church could refuse a handmade gift?

On that, I hope you are right. But I know there was a sort of handmade hanging, hanging around, for several years, that referred to the parish name, and was gradually moved off into storage oblivion.

We had a serious fire around 10 years ago. When we rebuilt and refurbished, everything was more Anglo-Catholic than before. Traditional, +1.

 

[Tommy999]

I am an evangelical protestant who listens to and respects what the Pope has to say and takes it to heart. I also try to give him the benefit of the doubt. For example, I believe this is the *Jubilee Year of Mercy *according to the Catholic radio station I sometimes listen to.

As a result, I have made an extra effort to forgive and be merciful to those who have wronged me and to be nicer and show mercy to my children and co-workers and everyone around me. I have always tried to do that but I have made an extra effort to do so in light of the Pope’s proclamation.

In other words, if what the Pope says doesn’t conflict with any of the major tenets of my faith, I look to him as arguably the main Christian leader who sets the spiritual tone for all the world’s Christians. That’s how I see and view him.

 

[Peter_J]

 

[eazyduzit]

The “call no man father” issue has been addressed many times. Jesus is using hyperbole; he obviously doesn’t mean you cannot call no man “father,” else you couldn’t refer to your mother’s husband as “father” – but no one thinks Jesus meant that.

In the very next verse, Jesus says to call no one “teacher.” Yet plenty of Protestants are fine addressing their pastors as “Dr. such and such” – the word doctor comes from the Latin word meaning teacher. But we know there is nothing wrong with calling someone “teacher,” for teachers have a role in the church:
“God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28)

Likewise, there are true fathers in the Church.

The fatherhood of the pope, like all bishops and priests, is s spiritual fatherhood. Paul says to the Corinthians: For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
Spiritual fatherhood on the part of the Apostles is clear throughout the New Testament:

Paul tells Timothy:“To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim 1:2).

So unless you have a specific objection to the kind of fatherhood that the Pope has, then using this Scriptural citation to negate spiritual fatherhood does not work.

And to your other point, yes purely human power can corrupt. There have been many scandals on the part of popes who have embraced temporal concerns over the eternal concerns of Christ. But popes are mere men who retain their free will – they too can choose evil. Thankfully, the vast majority of popes have been saintly men who have worked to accomplish the will of God.

Nevertheless, the Church was not built by men. It is not purely or merely human. Christ says “I will build my church.” And he continues by saying the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! This is the word of the Holy Spirit. And one tool Christ meant for his church to ensure its foundation of unity and belief is the role of Peter, whom Christ charged to “feed” his “sheep.” He prayed for Peter’s faith so that he could confirm his own brothers in the faith.

Peter’s very name was changed; and in the Bible, name changes signify something about the role of the person. Like Abram to Abraham. Peter is the “rock” on which Christ builds his church.

When he says to Peter I will give you the “Keys of the Kingdom,” Christ echoes the words of Isaiah 22, which pointed to the role of the chief steward in the House of David, who served under the king and yet served as a leading figure with the “keys”:As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy. MORE

**But anyway, with that out of the way, I’d like to stick on track with the various non-Catholic views of the role of the Pope. **

Are there any others besides Anglicans and Lutherans who view some kind of primacy of the Pope? I do not just mean a recognition of a historical primacy; rather, a recognition of some sort of valid primacy for today’s Christian church?

Thanks for the reply, but you misunderstood my point. Allow me to explain. Notice that v. 9 is phrased differently than 8 or10. First, it does not use “ye”, the plural of you. (Not seen unless read in Greek or KJV) Second, you see the phrase “upon the earth”. Why add this? Because there is a slight difference in the meaning in that we are speaking of one man being called father upon the earth. It does not prohibit calling a man father. That would be silly. Many call themselves Rabbi. It is a title of respect. Others may call themselves “masters” and the apostles are not even to do this. But verse 9 is not directed to them as a group. It prohibits the naming of one man father over all the earth. Can you see this? Please don’t waste your
time explaining that we have many fathers etc. That has nothing to do with it.

Shalom,
Jerry

 

[Reuben_J]

Thanks for the reply, but you misunderstood my point. Allow me to explain. Notice that v. 9 is phrased differently than 8 or10. First, it does not use “ye”, the plural of you. (Not seen unless read in Greek or KJV) Second, you see the phrase “upon the earth”. Why add this? Because there is a slight difference in the meaning in that we are speaking of one man being called father upon the earth. It does not prohibit calling a man father. That would be silly. Many call themselves Rabbi. It is a title of respect. Others may call themselves “masters” and the apostles are not even to do this. But verse 9 is not directed to them as a group. It prohibits the naming of one man father over all the earth. Can you see this? Please don’t waste your
time explaining that we have many fathers etc. That has nothing to do with it.

Shalom,
Jerry

I don’t how you study your Bible, but that interpretation is quite a leap. And what relevance is it to the Pope, the title which was developed over the centuries. And being a priest, he is not the only one whom we address as Father.

Matthew 23:9 KJV 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Jesus was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks for the reply, but you misunderstood my point. Allow me to explain. Notice that v. 9 is phrased differently than 8 or10. First, it does not use “ye”, the plural of you. (Not seen unless read in Greek or KJV) Second, you see the phrase “upon the earth”. Why add this? Because there is a slight difference in the meaning in that we are speaking of one man being called father upon the earth. It does not prohibit calling a man father. That would be silly. Many call themselves Rabbi. It is a title of respect. Others may call themselves “masters” and the apostles are not even to do this. But verse 9 is not directed to them as a group. It prohibits the naming of one man father over all the earth. Can you see this? Please don’t waste your
time explaining that we have many fathers etc. That has nothing to do with it.

Shalom,
Jerry

I have to agree with Reuben J (no relation) that this seems like a leap.

But thank you for not trying to tell us that Christ said “Don’t call any religious leader father.” I’ve really gotten so tired of people saying that.

 

[jschwartz]

Papal infallibility, and other innovations of Vatican I, are seen by many, myself included, as teachings which are not properly Catholic. Rather, it is properly Catholic (universal) to accept the fact of the Bishop of Rome’s primacy at the universal level, but that differences of understanding exist about how the primacy is to be exercised and about its scriptural and theological foundations. As a liberal Anglo-Catholic, I see the ARCIC declaration as something that most other Anglicans would support, but contrary to what many here may believe, Anglicans are best understood as not being Protestants.

 

[eazyduzit]

I don’t how you study your Bible, but that interpretation is quite a leap. And what relevance is it to the Pope, the title which was developed over the centuries. And being a priest, he is not the only one whom we address as Father.

Matthew 23:9 KJV 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Jesus was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

The pope is the only one who is the universal father. He also has the title, Pontificus Maximus. He is the Holy Father, the Holy One, He is the only one who wears the white.

Here is a quote from Gregory 1. “Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others”.

 

[twf]

The pope is the only one who is the universal father. He also has the title, Pontificus Maximus. He is the Holy Father, the Holy One, He is the only one who wears the white.

Here is a quote from Gregory 1. “Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others”.

The title “Holy Father” is used out of respect, but I have never seen the Bishop of Rome referred to as “the Holy One”. In fact every Sunday and feast we sing at mass, in the last verse of the Gloria, “for you alone are the Holy One.” This is directed at Our Blessed Lord, Christ Jesus.
Pope St Gregory the Great was addressing a particular issue that arose at the time. The Bishop of Constantinople had assumed the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” (Patriarch of the Ecumene, which could be translated as universal). Rome opposed the potential implications. While the Pope does have universal jurisdiction, he is not the universal bishop. He is the head of the college of bishops as St Peter was the head of the apostolic college. There is a distinctjon. Each bishop has true authority over the local Church and receives this authority directly from Christ. The Second Vatican Council was careful to clarify that bishops are NOT mere vicars of the Pope but rather true vicars of Christ in their own right. (see CCC 894).

 

[GKC]

Papal infallibility, and other innovations of Vatican I, are seen by many, myself included, as teachings which are not properly Catholic. Rather, it is properly Catholic (universal) to accept the fact of the Bishop of Rome’s primacy at the universal level, but that differences of understanding exist about how the primacy is to be exercised and about its scriptural and theological foundations. As a liberal Anglo-Catholic, I see the ARCIC declaration as something that most other Anglicans would support, but contrary to what many here may believe, Anglicans are best understood as not being Protestants.

Your ultimate point being one I have been known to express.

 

[Brendan_64]

The problem is, if you accept the plain meaning of scripture, then you can’t accept papal primacy. Mt. 23:9 warnes, “Call no [one] man father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” The church is to be lead from within, by the HS and not by one man who alone is father and alone is holy. We can have many fathers, but electing one father will lead to abuses. As Lord Acton warned, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Matthew 16:18-19 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

So what is Christ talking about here if He is not instituting one visible Church with an individual as it’s visible leader with authority directly granted to that leader?

You say that “Power corrupts”, so was Christ wrong when He gave Peter the authority to such an extent that whatever he bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven? He granted that authority, not to all believers, but to one man, who He established as the leader of His Church on Earth.

 

[benhur]

I don’t how you study your Bible, but that interpretation is quite a leap. And what relevance is it to the Pope, the title which was developed over the centuries. And being a priest, he is not the only one whom we address as Father.

Matthew 23:9 KJV 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Jesus was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Hi reuben,

I would add a few things to your point. Some might say you are against the institutionalizing of authority/teaching, of any setting themselves as "ultimate’’. I am sure they thought themselves to be speaking for God, even for Moses and the Law, which we know are God given and not of themselves. Of course God is the ultimate Father, teacher, authority. Now who carries it on Earth ? But you may be leaving room for another aspect of what Jesus meant.

From the book of Job we learn that God gives understanding to whom He will, is not a respecter of persons, even office. That is even a young Elihu can have the better understanding above the ‘elder’ folk. What helps keep our teachers, ‘fathers’ and leaders humble is that the same understanding that God gives them is also given to ‘laity’ so to speak. A bit like we are all ‘priests’ . A bit like He will write the law on our heart, we will not to be taught as in the manner of olden days. So I think Jesus says yes, we will have teachers, and fathers, even spiritual ones, and elders, but accentuates our personal relationship with the Father as the ultimate, and not to supplant that by/with those folks gifted over us, both for their sakes and ours.

Blessings