How much "power" do Protestant ministers have?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kalt said:
I know that many Protestants don’t like the Catholic Church because they believe the priests have too much power and control over people’s lives.

The truth, I think (correct me if I’m wrong), is that Catholic priests have very little autonomous “power” to do anything. They can’t teach their own personal interpretations of the Bible if that interpretation isn’t condoned by the Vatican. They can’t allow transgressions that the Vatican doesn’t allow.

OTOH, it seems to me (again, correct me if I’m wrong) Protestant ministers are given much more lattitude than Catholic priests.

What would happen if a Protestant minister decided to teach his own interpretaion of certain Bible passages?

What would happen if the minister decided to allow gay people to marry (or not) in his church, contrary to what other ministers in the same denomination were doing?

How closely do Protestant ministers have to follow the rules?

It seems that more than a few Protestant ministers have become famous for doing just that–coming up with a new way of looking at their religion. But then maybe they’ve started their own splinter group when they do that???

How far from the rules does a Protestant minister have to stray to be considered a heretic?

Kalt
Click to expand...
Protestant ministers have no ‘power’ at all except what their congregations bestow upon them. First, they are lay people. Second, they do not have any sense of Orders so they cannot sacramentally take care of their people. They can practice the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, but we are all supposed to be doing that.
 
JonNC said:
Not if they’re following the confessions. 😃

Seriously, it is clear to me, too, that some “Lutherans” are no longer “orthodox” in their teaching on the clergy. Ordaining women, for example, is a divergence from confessional Lutheranism.
Thats said, however, I think all Lutheran synods expect their clergy to adhere to the teachings of the synod in matters of doctrine.

Jon

Jon
Click to expand...
It should also be clear to you the contradictions in your above statement. Lutheran synods may expect adherence in doctrinal matters but are powerless to do anything in regard to the divergences you have mentioned. What is “orthodox” teaching in one branch of Lutheranism is considered heresy in another branch and vice versa.
 
I think there was a time in Catholicism where the parish priest was considered to be something almost more than human by his parishioners.

Historically, Tomster is quite correct, his (the priests) status had everything to do with the privilege, authority and prestige the institutional church wrapped him in.

With Protestantism you see a range of reactions to this, in my own church we see very clearly a difference between the Pastor as “hireling” and the Pastor as autocrat.

In many evangelical churches, the prestige and authority of the pastor has more to do with the “cult of personality” and the individual’s charisma. One wonders what will happen when Joel Osteen or Robert Schuller retire…

In other churches there is such a strong impulse to de-sacralize and therefore “neuter” the office that the pastor is basically indistinguishable from any other member of the church (Quakers have no pastors, for example, though I am aware that some have something like the office, a certain strain of Plymouth Brethren have several elders who take turns with the “liturgy”).

In the more conservatively ordered churches the pastor’s authority ranges generally from a sort of controlled presidency to the office of marrier, burier and baptizer with lay-people doing the work of actually managing the “business”.

In Catholic churches there has been an increase in parish boards where lay-people are given varying degrees of responsibility for the day-to-day affairs of the church. For example, lay DCE’s are often hired, doing jobs formerly done solely by the parish priest.

In some cases these boards are merely advisory, they form a sort of “cabinet” for the priest to consult when making decisions. In larger parishes they have actual autonomy over their several spheres, making binding decisions with or without the pastor’s express consent. I realize that, technically, the pastor has a right of veto over any such decisions, in actual practice it is rarely exercized.
 
peary said:
Protestant ministers have no ‘power’ at all except what their congregations bestow upon them. First, they are lay people. Second, they do not have any sense of Orders so they cannot sacramentally take care of their people. They can practice the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, but we are all supposed to be doing that.
Click to expand...
Exactly! What is interesting is the contradiction in Protestantism which states on the one hand that an individual can read and interpret the Bible for himself and, then, on the other hand, the man in the pew will listen to the minister in the pulpit give his/her interpretation of Scripture to the flock every Sunday and expect the man in the pew to accept his/her teaching.

Just a question to all of our non-Catholic posters: what is the purpose of a Protestant minister if the individual can interpret the Bible for himself?
 
Ah now I see…

In Protestant churches the pastor is the one who has been to seminary, has learned the original languages, homiletics and in many cases is ecclesially ordered to preach and teach.

This idea of the perspecuity of Scripture is often misunderstood:

First of all, by and large, Protestants do NOT believe that every Christian can “interpret Scripture for himself” without reference to tradition, by which is usually meant some confessional standard. What is usually meant is that the kinds of tight controls the RCC has historically placed over exegesis and study of the Bible have been loosened since it is, afterall, pretty clear on most things.

For example, an individual Lutheran cannot come to the personal view that the Eucharist is symbolic and remain a Lutheran, but he can certainly disagree with the form of church government his church practices (as long as he isn’t actively agitating for is preference), maybe that isn’t a good example but i think you’ll get my meaning.

Epistemologically, this puts Protestants in more or less the same boat as Catholics: the church still is the clearinghouse and custodian of doctrine, but for Protestants this custodianship is a bit more free.

But I am not really sure the issue is even about the interpretation of the Bible. Catholics interpret the bible for themselves all the time, they do so in keeping with their church’s teaching of course, but then, this is what Protestants do as well.

So I am not sure where the confusion or the question arises.

The churches who believe there is no institutional church or that there should be no official leadership are so few as to be negligible for the purposes of our discussion. The rest believe, generally, that the church has (or in a few cases, embodies) the standard by which teaching must be measured and delivered and that the proper agent for this is the pastor who is the one with the training and the endorsement of the church and (one assumes) God and therefore the call to actually do it.

And this is why Protestants have pastors.
 
kalt said:
I know that many Protestants don’t like the Catholic Church because they believe the priests have too much power and control over people’s lives.

The truth, I think (correct me if I’m wrong), is that Catholic priests have very little autonomous “power” to do anything. They can’t teach their own personal interpretations of the Bible if that interpretation isn’t condoned by the Vatican. They can’t allow transgressions that the Vatican doesn’t allow.

OTOH, it seems to me (again, correct me if I’m wrong) Protestant ministers are given much more lattitude than Catholic priests.

What would happen if a Protestant minister decided to teach his own interpretaion of certain Bible passages?

What would happen if the minister decided to allow gay people to marry (or not) in his church, contrary to what other ministers in the same denomination were doing?

How closely do Protestant ministers have to follow the rules?

It seems that more than a few Protestant ministers have become famous for doing just that–coming up with a new way of looking at their religion. But then maybe they’ve started their own splinter group when they do that???

How far from the rules does a Protestant minister have to stray to be considered a heretic?

Kalt
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: [sarcasm] Yes, we hate the Catholic Church. Why? It’s in our blood. [/endsarcasm] :rolleyes:

Well, then maybe the Vatican has too much power?

Then people could walk away from the church and not listen? It is not very hard, I’ve done it on occassion.

Then if he was a part of a association example: (SBC- Southern Baptist Convention) then he’d probably get kicked out of it, and they’d be independant.

They don’t have any rules, unless they are under a association which might have rules, or if the Church they are at has a established set of rules. Usually if they do something crazy, the congregation has the ability to vote them out.

Wasn’t Martin Luther a monk? So maybe protestants aren’t the only ones with their own ideals that break away ;).

Aren’t we already considered heretics by the RCC?
 
Tomster said:
It should also be clear to you the contradictions in your above statement. Lutheran synods may expect adherence in doctrinal matters but are powerless to do anything in regard to the divergences you have mentioned. What is “orthodox” teaching in one branch of Lutheranism is considered heresy in another branch and vice versa.
Click to expand...
That could be said of the Catholic Church, as well. Old Catholics, for example.

Jon
 
More individually:

Hans Kung, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Edward Schillebeecx, Matthew Foxe
 
Gentlemen,

The Old Catholics, SSPX and the individuals quoted above are fully aware of, how shall we say, their status in regards to their being in communion with the See of Rome. They have all “protested” their way out of full communion.

As far as individual Protestants being able to interpret the Scriptures, Sola Scriptura, please refer to Martin Luther’s writings regarding the subject. If Protestantism has strayed from the good doctor’s teachings on this very important matter maybe a large portion of Protestantism has inched its way closer to the Catholic belief in a Magisterial teaching body, a non-infallible one of course.
 
[QUOTE said:
Tomster;4605662]Gentlemen,
Click to expand...
The Old Catholics, SSPX and the individuals quoted above are fully aware of, how shall we say, their status in regards to their being in communion with the See of Rome. They have all “protested” their way out of full communion.
Click to expand...
And in like manner, the LCMS is not in communion with the ELCA in doctrinal grounds.
As far as individual Protestants being able to interpret the Scriptures, Sola Scriptura, please refer to Martin Luther’s writings regarding the subject. If Protestantism has strayed from the good doctor’s teachings on this very important matter maybe a large portion of Protestantism has inched its way closer to the Catholic belief in a Magisterial teaching body, a non-infallible one of course
Click to expand...
.

Anyone can interpret scripture, but to be a confessional Lutheran one must adhere to the confessions, particularly the Augsburg Confession, in articles of faith. This has not changed since the confession was offered. Steadfast gave one example concerning the Eucharist. Luther didn’t say to Zwingli, “hey, Ulrich, old buddy, believe all you want that the Sacrament is symbolic”.
When I was young, I wasn’t told to read scripture and interpret it for myself. I was taught from the Catechism, “we believe, teach and confess…”.
Now in things not considered articles of faith, we are free to interpret and believe as we wish, so long as they do not contradict scripture. For example, I believe that the BVM was ever-virgin. I do not know if Steadfast holds the same view or not.

Jon
 
O.S.Luke said:
You should amend your statement to “Some Protestants.” Not all Protestants think this way.

Again, you should amend that to “Some Protestants.” I am amenable to church law and my bishop.

I could have church charges (canon law) filed against me for violating the Book of Discipline (United Methodist Church law), and be sanctioned, put on leave of absence, face a church trial and/or be stripped of my orders.
Click to expand...
:sad_yes:
Of course, when it comes to the independent, nondenominational churches, the pastor is in another position. I have seen churches all but fall (or fly!) apart,because the pastor (or, :cool: in one case at least, his wife) decided that he was the:eek: king of his own little kingdom.
But Methodists? Oy! Luke is so right about the Book of Discipline; that “little red book” (which is actually a large brown book…but I 😉 digress) has the last word on what pastors can & cannot do. Always has…
NDfan said:
So then what doctrinal issues would you say impact a person’s salvation? Is there such a thing as essentials vs. non-essentials?
Click to expand...
OT, but yes there are. (Catholics have them too, I have discovered here at CAF).Probably, however,IMHO, a question for another thread.
 
ChristianKnight said:
:rolleyes: [sarcasm] Yes, we hate the Catholic Church. Why? It’s in our blood. [/endsarcasm] :rolleyes:

Well, then maybe the Vatican has too much power?

Then people could walk away from the church and not listen? It is not very hard, I’ve done it on occassion.

Then if he was a part of a association example: (SBC- Southern Baptist Convention) then he’d probably get kicked out of it, and they’d be independant.

They don’t have any rules, unless they are under a association which might have rules, or if the Church they are at has a established set of rules. Usually if they do something crazy, the congregation has the ability to vote them out.

Wasn’t Martin Luther a monk? So maybe protestants aren’t the only ones with their own ideals that break away ;).

Aren’t we already considered heretics by the RCC?
Click to expand...
Hate? Did you mean sarcasism or hyperbole?

The rest of you post in unintelligible. Can you reword it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top