Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[Lochias]

The Popes have generally been remarkedly patient and earnest for the unity of the Church. Indeed, within the Church today many actually complain of the Church’s being far too gentle and tolerant and not exercising her spiritual powers and perogatives [e.g., excommunication] more frequently. That is to say, the Church and the Popes leading her are almost tolerant to a fault [seemingly tolerating scandal], according to the perspective or opinion of many.

I agree that words alone do not necessarily make somehing so. But if you want an example of the pacific nature of the Papacy all you have to do is look at the history of England during the Reformation. Countless souls were confused and distressed because the Popes refused to formally sever or excommunicate the reformers and innovators until all possible hope of reconciliation was completely lost. Keep in mind that Catholics were already dying for their faith - for the Papacy specifically. Without doubt this must have pained the hearts of the Popes; for they were not ignorant that these men [and women] were dying for their fidelity to the Holy See - that is, to an extent, for their person.

How many Christians fail to fulfill their baptismal vocations? Does this mean Christianity is a failure? How many Christians live up to their lofty vocation as Christians? How many Christians consistently and constantly savour of the Sermon on the Mount? Notwithstanding, there is a difference between what is required and what is requested; all Christians are called to singular heroism in the living and profession of their faith- even to the shedding of their blood; however, the evangelical counsels, for example, remain voluntary. There have been indeed many singular instances of Popes who not only died for the faith [the first Popes were singularly targeted for execution and hence they had very short reigns] but are also remarkable and extraordinary men even by secular standards and admission.

Yes; and for all of that there has never been any period where the Popes perverted the faith or drowned the Church in doctrinal errors. That says more: it attests to a singular Divine Protection.

No. It seems to me you expect them to be rather more than men.

Well said, all of it.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Well said, all of it.

I’m flattered- thank you.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

I would not necessarily agree with the conclusion. The Articles, as did those that preceded them, represented conditions of the day, as you say. Nothing prevents an Anglican from asserting that such doctrine was perfectly correct, and adopting them as a contemporary form of confession of belief. But nothing requires that (save as noted).

GKC

I’m not commenting on current Anglican confessions of belief, except: where current confessions specifically rest on criticisms of the RCC raised by the 39 Articles that, however valid they were in 1549, are now strawmen (as Fr. Newman’s argues in Tract 90) they are on suspect ground, and, moreover, aggravated by belligerent language that no longer serves a useful purpose.

note also that the Book of Common Prayer includes the 39 Articles in the “Historical Documents of the Church” section, rather than the section titled “An Outline of the Faith”.

here’s a question: given that the Anglican Church (I’m familiar with the ACNA more than with TEC) considers itself catholic and apostolic, why would a member look to the 39 Articles rather than the Nicene Creed as a statement of belief?

Westerby

 

[jrtrent]

the Thirty Nine Articles is a document of its time, as the abuses it addressed predated the reforms of Trent, as Anglican Fr. Newman pointed out in Tract 90, his defense of Anglo-Catholicism.

anyone using the 39 articles as a weapon against current Roman Catholic practices is making a very deceptive argument.

I don’t see anyone using the 39 Articles as a weapon against Roman Catholic practice, but as a statement of Anglican doctrine they can serve to show differences in belief among different churches, just as can the Augsburg Confession, the Creed of Pope Pius IV, the Decrees of the Council of Trent, the Westminster Confession, and so on.

Much as I appreciate Newman (and occasionally re-read his Parochial and Plain Sermons), I’m not sure his thoughts on the 39 Articles represent Anglican thinking. According to one site I read, “The Tracts came to a sudden end in 1841 with Tract 90 by John Henry Newman. His attempt to give a “catholic” interpretation to the Thirty-Nine Articles brought a storm of protest and forced an end to the series.” He joined the Roman Catholic church about four years after Tract 90 was published.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

I don’t see anyone using the 39 Articles as a weapon against Roman Catholic practice, but as a statement of Anglican doctrine they can serve to show differences in belief among different churches, just as can the Augsburg Confession, the Creed of Pope Pius IV, the Decrees of the Council of Trent, the Westminster Confession, and so on.

Much as I appreciate Newman (and occasionally re-read his Parochial and Plain Sermons), I’m not sure his thoughts on the 39 Articles represent Anglican thinking. According to one site I read, “The Tracts came to a sudden end in 1841 with Tract 90 by John Henry Newman. His attempt to give a “catholic” interpretation to the Thirty-Nine Articles brought a storm of protest and forced an end to the series.” He joined the Roman Catholic church about four years after Tract 90 was published.

my understanding of Anglican belief is that it encompasses an Anglo-Catholic wing. so Fr. Newman’s position would have been, and remains, a valid expression of Anglicanism.

by comments about the 39 Articles are very limited, and set out in my response to GKC.

Are you, by any chance, a member of the Anglican Church in North America?

Westerby

 

[jrtrent]

(I’m familiar with the ACNA more than with TEC)

The 39 Articles appear to be of more than just historical significance to the ACNA:

Therefore, the Anglican Church in North America identifies the following seven elements as characteristic of the Anglican Way, and essential for membership:

. . . 7.We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.

Are you, by any chance, a member of the Anglican Church in North America?

No. The congregation I belong to was previously a member of the APA, but left to join the Anglican Churches of the Northwest.

 

[Jerry_Westerby]

The 39 Articles appear to be of more than just historical significance to the ACNA:

Therefore, the Anglican Church in North America identifies the following seven elements as characteristic of the Anglican Way, and essential for membership:

. . . 7.We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.

No. The congregation I belong to was previously a member of the APA, but left to join the Anglican Churches of the Northwest.

I know some ACNA clergy, but wouldn’t presume to speak on the nuances of ACNA doctrine. I do pray for the unity of all Christians, and the healing of these rifts.

Westerby

 

[silvestromedia]

The Big 1.2.3, Power,wealth,sex

 

[GKC]

I’m not commenting on current Anglican confessions of belief, except: where current confessions specifically rest on criticisms of the RCC raised by the 39 Articles that, however valid they were in 1549, are now strawmen (as Fr. Newman’s argues in Tract 90) they are on suspect ground, and, moreover, aggravated by belligerent language that no longer serves a useful purpose.

note also that the Book of Common Prayer includes the 39 Articles in the “Historical Documents of the Church” section, rather than the section titled “An Outline of the Faith”.

here’s a question: given that the Anglican Church (I’m familiar with the ACNA more than with TEC) considers itself catholic and apostolic, why would a member look to the 39 Articles rather than the Nicene Creed as a statement of belief?

Westerby

There are no Anglican confessions of belief, in the sense the Lutherans have the Book of Concord, unless someone wishes to adopt something (the Articles, say) as one. There is no authoritative, formal confession of faith normative for Anglicans, generally. It is that simple.

I often point out what you say, in your para 2. One of the few things I find admirable about the 79 book.

Anglicans are free to look for expressions of belief and doctrine where they will, I fear, but, as I pointed out, traditionally Anglicanism is Creedal at it’s base. The Articles, while available to serve the purpose for any who desire to do so (as others may cut them from tghe BCP and use them t kindle the new fire at Easter) are not, formally and normatively, a confession.

GKC

 

[GKC]

It would appear that you and J. C. Ryle come to different conclusions on the matter. I haven’t been an Anglican very long, and the group I belong to is not part of the Anglican Communion, but I do find it odd that the articles would not be considered normative when the prayerbook at the Church of England website includes this quote:

His Grace of Liverpool was certainly free to think that the Articles were somehow normative, even as at the time the Oxford Movement and the Ritualist movement were proving otherwise. As a counterweight to the pious prelate cited, there are others, who wrote more closely to the times:

John Bramhall, Archbishop of Armagh:

“We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, ‘without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same as contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed.”

Or Archbisop James Usher, likewise of Armagh: "“We do not suffer any man to reject the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving faith, or legacies of Christ and his apostles ; but in a mean, as pious opinions, fitted for the preservation of peace and unity ; neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them.”

Which, like other quotes, are neither here nor there. Even the quote you gave last, which was from King Charles I, 1628, is based only on his authority as Supreme Governor of the CoE (which was the totality of Anglicanism then, and far from it, now), and really only reiterates the legal authority of the Act of Subscription, with a hope the people will do the same as what the legal requirement for the clergy was. There was no legal requirement that the subjects do so.

There is no general, formal and normative confession of faith in Anglicanism because there is no authority which can require it. Only an Erastian Church could even make the Articles a requirement of holding a clerical position in the CoE.

Any person, any jurisdiction, in Anglicanism can affirm the Articles as normative. Any Anglican, any jurisdiction, can ignore them, subject to the requirements of the Act of Subscription.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

To what then does it speak? The keys were given specifically to Peter, with the other Apostles present. I’m not sure I have the energy to go through this entire argument, but the book of Acts demonstrates quite clearly that it was Peter who spoke definitively (concerning doctrine) and that once he spoke the issue was put to bed. Tradition supports the scripture, as far as Peter’s place in the Church**. It is natural that each non-Catholic faith tradition must** come up with a different viewpoint in order to justify the fact that they do not follow the Pope and recognize his universal authority. I don’t think you would deny that there is a real motivation to interpret the scriptures and history to one’s advantage in this regard.

Hi Steve,
Well, I think the last part applies to the Catholic Church, as well, that Rome has put its own interpretation of scripture and Tradition to conclude, I believe, long after the early councils, that it alone has universal jurisdiction.

I think it difficult to interpret the giving of the keys to St. Peter implies that he alone, and only one of the sees, holds those keys, particularly since Christ also grants the power to bind and loose on all of the Apostles. The keys are given to the Church on Earth, not simply to one see.

Congrats on becoming a new grandfather. My one-year-old granddaughter is sitting here with me, waiting for her mom to get here this evening after being deployed. My son is still deployed, so we’ve had her for 3 weeks. Lots of fun.

Jon

 

[Simka]

… show me one verse where God teaches everything must be said and taught from the Bible-only?

Are you suggesting that you accept the authority of what God teaches in Bible verses? Certainly, in Acts 17:10-13, the Bereans are commended for testing everything Paul teaches, by the authority of scripture.

But perhaps more to the point: as you have suggested, it is a widely accepted standard that doctrine taught in the Word of God ought to be believed. The declarations of Christ himself, and His appointed messengers, are the basis for the core doctrines of the church.

If, beyond that, you choose to recognize another doctrinal authority, you are free to do so, but lacking the warrant of Scripture, you are unlikely to achieve universal agreement among all Christians … much the same as the Bereans would have rejected teaching that could not stand up to that test.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Further, simple reason itself tells us that it would have been a defect or even a fault not to have an ultimate singular head of the Church to preserve her faith and unity. The question becomes why -even though there existed precedent of a spiritual leader of God’s people in the Old Testament- would God not give His Church a like boon and benefit in the perfect and Eternal Covenant?

CaptFun and 1AugustSon----

I believe you both have brought up similar ideas—namely, that you believe God used an ultimate singular head to lead Israel before Christ.

1AugustSon, I think you believe that singular head to be the high priest, right?

CaptFun, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be saying that the authorized singular headship could move around somewhat—

from Moses and then Joshua,
to a Judge (like Deborah),
to a single prophet ( like Samuel),
then perhaps to a king during the relatively brief time of unity in Israel’s monarchy (David and Solomon),
then maybe to one of the kings of the two kingdoms or to one of the prophets of one of those kingdoms ( like Elijah and then Elisha, who both served the northern kingdom);
and so on till during Jesus’ time we see Him give the authority of Moses to the scribes and Pharisees, though whether those Pharisees with authority were to be of the House of Hillel or the House of Shammai He doesn’t specify.

I’m interested in investigating this idea (of a singular headship given to Israel) further, on its own thread, since this one is going all over the place already. I’m just not seeing it, gentleman, but it may be due to my own incomplete knowledge. I’m really busy with work, probably for the next several months, but maybe we could delve deeper into this topic again at some time on its own thread.

Thanks, CaptFun, for taking my original question graciously. It wasn’t meant as a challenge, but more as thinking to myself “Hmm…that doesn’t seem quite true to me, but I’m willing to explore it further with you.”

 

[jrtrent]

Any person, any jurisdiction, in Anglicanism can affirm the Articles as normative. Any Anglican, any jurisdiction, can ignore them, subject to the requirements of the Act of Subscription.

Strange concept, but James Usher seems an interesting character. He had written 104 Articles that the Church of Ireland was already using, then the 39 Articles were adopted in addition to them. It will be interesting to read his 104 and see how they compare. The article I saw said they were a lot less ambiguous. They close with this:

“If any Minister, of what degree of quality soever he be, shall publicly teach any doctrine contrary to these Articles agreed upon, if, after due admonition he does not conform himself, and cease to disturb the peace of the Church, let him be silenced and deprived of all spiritual promotions he doth enjoy.”

Though to continue the subject is probably now off-topic to this thread, I’m still having a really difficult time understanding why in the Church of England the Thirty-Nine Articles would not be considered normative, unless the word “normative” has some technical definition within the church that I’m not aware of, especially given the sub-title by which they are known:

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion
or
The Doctrine of the Church of England as by Law Established

If it’s not a statement of doctrine, as it appears to be, then what is it? Also, if a person does not subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles, why belong to a church that has them in its prayer book? You don’t need to answer these; they’re just questions of interest for me to research and think about.

 

[GKC]

Strange concept, but James Usher seems an interesting character. He had written 104 Articles that the Church of Ireland was already using, then the 39 Articles were adopted in addition to them. It will be interesting to read his 104 and see how they compare. The article I saw said they were a lot less ambiguous. They close with this:

“If any Minister, of what degree of quality soever he be, shall publicly teach any doctrine contrary to these Articles agreed upon, if, after due admonition he does not conform himself, and cease to disturb the peace of the Church, let him be silenced and deprived of all spiritual promotions he doth enjoy.”

Though to continue the subject is probably now off-topic to this thread, I’m still having a really difficult time understanding why in the Church of England the Thirty-Nine Articles would not be considered normative, unless the word “normative” has some technical definition within the church that I’m not aware of, especially given the sub-title by which they are known:

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion
or
The Doctrine of the Church of England as by Law Established

If it’s not a statement of doctrine, as it appears to be, then what is it? Also, if a person does not subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles, why belong to a church that has them in its prayer book? You don’t need to answer these; they’re just questions of interest for me to research and think about.

It’s a set of statements which the clergy of the CoE were required to subscribe to (not to believe in) by law, on pain of losing their clerical status, and to not actively preach against; they need only not contradict it. And that is by this time a technical requirement only, not one enforced. They were a sort of job description for CoE ordinands; how Elizabeth I chose to keep order in a fractious Church, theology as statecraft (the two were always intertwined in the day). As George Bull, Bishop of St. David’s in the early 1700s said, “For she” ( the CoE) “professeth not to deliver all her Articles (all I say, for some of them are coincident with the fundamental points of Christianity) as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved ; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And therefore she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity, who yet are obliged to acknowledge and profess all the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, no less than the most learned doctors.” (that is, the Creeds). Articles of Peace; the Elizabethan compromise.

The para you quoted beginning “And if any Minister…” is a paraphrase of the equivalent para in the Subscription Act of 1571. Since the Act is the law, a direct quote would not be surprising. But the paraphrase is saying both what I said, and what the Act of Subscription said.

And remember that the CoE is not the totality of Anglicanism anymore. And that you can find all sorts of folk, in all sorts of Anglican jurisdictions, in all sorts of places, who affirm all sorts of things, or decline to do so. Some consider the Articles doctrinal and confessional. For them it is doubtless so. But it is not necessarily so.

Usher is interesting. I would expect you had heard of him before: Age of the Earth Usher, that is. And I’d expect his articles to be less ambiguous; he had Calvinist inclinations, and did not have Elizabeth’s goals. But he was a moderate.

GKC

 

[AbideWithMe]

CaptFun and 1AugustSon----

I believe you both have brought up similar ideas—namely, that you believe God used an ultimate singular head to lead Israel before Christ.

1AugustSon, I think you believe that singular head to be the high priest, right?

CaptFun, if I understood you correctly, you seemed to be saying that the authorized singular headship could move around somewhat—

from Moses and then Joshua,
to a Judge (like Deborah),
to a single prophet ( like Samuel),
then perhaps to a king during the relatively brief time of unity in Israel’s monarchy (David and Solomon),
then maybe to one of the kings of the two kingdoms or to one of the prophets of one of those kingdoms ( like Elijah and then Elisha, who both served the northern kingdom);
and so on till during Jesus’ time we see Him give the authority of Moses to the scribes and Pharisees, though whether those Pharisees with authority were to be of the House of Hillel or the House of Shammai He doesn’t specify.

I’m interested in investigating this idea (of a singular headship given to Israel) further, on its own thread, since this one is going all over the place already. I’m just not seeing it, gentleman, but it may be due to my own incomplete knowledge. I’m really busy with work, probably for the next several months, but maybe we could delve deeper into this topic again at some time on its own thread.

Thanks, CaptFun, for taking my original question graciously. It wasn’t meant as a challenge, but more as thinking to myself “Hmm…that doesn’t seem quite true to me, but I’m willing to explore it further with you.”

Sorry–I meant to type “gentlemen”, not “gentleman”.

 

[Simka]

… why do Protestants think it’s okay to not have doctrinal conformity amongst the various denominations? How can they think that the lack of doctrinal conformity could in any way be of God?

Most denominational differences aren’t disagreements over core doctrine. Sometimes it’s merely liturgical. Some prefer one form of church government over another, some feel there should be no music in church, some are more insistent than others about following the lectionary, the church calendar and its seasons. Some reject infant baptism but practise only Believer’s Baptism, as an ordinance, not as a sacrament.

Where the differences are doctrinal, most people believe that their particular branch of Christianity is the one Spirit-led, and the other branches have gone off the main road. It wasn’t until some of those branches began to violate basic Scriptural tenets of faith that the greatest splits occurred.

Now, for example, you find the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) preaching that Jesus is one way, among many, to God. There are Bishops in that church that insist the Bible has no particular relevance for today, but that it is “an interesting historical document that details how an ancient people related to God as they understood Him”.

Many mainstream Protestant denominations disassociate themselves from such heresy.

 

[JonNC]

=Simka;9779036]Most denominational differences aren’t disagreements over core doctrine.

I guess its just the Lutheranism in me, but I respectfully beg to differ. If it isn’t over doctrine, there is no reason for division.

Sometimes it’s merely liturgical. Some prefer one form of church government over another, some feel there should be no music in church, some are more insistent than others about following the lectionary, the church calendar and its seasons. Some reject infant baptism but practise only Believer’s Baptism, as an ordinance, not as a sacrament.

This is a core doctrinal difference. And if the feeling that there should be no music in worship is related to iconoclasm, that is an important belief, as well, since the councils rejected iconoclasm.

Where the differences are doctrinal, most people believe that their particular branch of Christianity is the one Spirit-led, and the other branches have gone off the main road. It wasn’t until some of those branches began to violate basic Scriptural tenets of faith that the greatest splits occurred.

Agreed, but doctrine is the real issue, not polity per se.

Jon

 

[Radical]

Notwithstanding the point remains: you have not rebutted the fact that most Anglicans and even the Orthodox generally affirm….

you are right….I haven’t rebutted that fact, but then again, I don’t need to. Yours is the minority position….you are just breaking the majority into groups

It is without doubt objectively that the Gospels themselves bear witness to a Divine Commission granted directly to Saint Peter.

agreed, the scriptures bear witness to divine commissions granted to quite a number of prophets and apostles….never is a supremacy mentioned.

Further, the scriptures consistently and constantly portray Our Lord taking Saint Peter aside for special instruction.

did you mean special correction? Quite often Peter would speak in error and then Christ would be forced to make a correction.

There was a special and even intimate relationship between the two that none of the sacred writers denied and even made a point to display.

I wouldn’t deny it either…but again, special does not equal supreme…nor was his the only special and intimate relationship

Moreover, in the Gospels and even the Acts of the Apostles, Saint Peter is consistently portrayed as leading the Apostles and speaking on their behalf, as well as on behalf of the whole Christian community. All of this contributes objectively to a special commission from Our Lord and none of it can possibly serve or avail the contrary.

yes, Peter was a leader. In a number of ways his leadership was surpassed by Paul. At Jerusalem, James was head of the church even when Peter was around and it was James not Peter, who rendered the judgement in Acts 15….but again, supremacy is not mentioned ever wrt any of those three.

Or even of any of the Apostles generally; notwithstanding, the super-majority of Christians acknowledge at least apostolic succession generally by way of the bishops.

a majority indeed does….it is the linchpin of much that is claimed and it won’t be easily abandoned…nevertheless, the majority isn’t anywhere near what it once was.
I had said that nothing in scripture gives any indication that the appointment would have anything to do with Rome. You supplied this passage:
Romans 1:7-8
[7] To all that are at Rome… [8] First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world.
…and then posted:

This Apostle elsewhere insists that he never lies; yet he affirms already in the Apostolic age that the faith of the Roman Church is “spoken of in the whole world”. Certainly it would at least be known in all of the Churches; already, in the Apostolic Age, the Roman Church was conscpicously famous for her faith.

What are you thinking? Is it your belief that if you can find a positive statement about the Roman church somewhere in scripture, then you are justified in claiming any other positive thing that you want for the Roman church? I can’t imagine that someone would value that approach, but earlier it seemed that you thought that if you could show that Peter was a leader of any sort, then you were justified in taking a great leap and claiming that Peter’s leadership was of a supreme type. Further, it would seem that the good faith of the Roman church was something that arose before Peter even got to Rome, before Rome could have a Pope,…so how is the faith of the Roman congregation in any way connected to the alleged housing of a supreme office decades later?

Further, simple reason itself tells us that it would have been a defect or even a fault not to have an ultimate singular head of the Church to preserve her faith and unity.

this sounds somewhat similar to the Israelites of the OT who rejected God as their king and insisted upon the appointment of an earthly monarch. Scriptures say that he relented on that occasion, but where does it say that God went against his desire (for no earthly monarch for his children)for a second time?

The question becomes why -even though there existed precedent of a spiritual leader of God’s people in the Old Testament- would God not give His Church a like boon and benefit in the perfect and Eternal Covenant?

did you mean the sort of beneficial leadership that made bad tradition and that couldn’t recognize the messiah when he was standing right in front of that OT spiritual leader?

 

[Radical]

The Popes have generally been remarkedly patient and earnest for the unity of the Church. Indeed, within the Church today many actually complain of the Church’s being far too gentle and tolerant…

it seems that you somehow misunderstood the questions. Please remember that those questions called for an assessment of the last 1500 years (and not merely what has happened since Vatican II). Please also remember that this is supposed to be a miraculous chain of succession that extends from Christ and Peter through to the current Pope. One doesn’t judge the quality of a chain based on how shiny and sound the last few links are. Men of integrity are exactly what the pastorals specified….they should be the norm. The gospels required a “non-lord it over them” leadership. Plausibility points are not gained by now having something much closer to what should have always been. Instead the integrity of the whole chain becomes questionable by the existence of quite a number of corrupted links and by many, many “lord it over them” links. Consider the inquisition, is that something that is or isn’t consistent with a “lord it over” style?

But if you want an example of the pacific nature of the Papacy all you have to do is look at the history of England during the Reformation…

a true measure of a pacifistic nature would be to see what the Popes did when they possessed the military and political clout to really do something (and then refrained for pacifistic reasons)…do you think that you have provided such an example?

How many Christians fail to fulfill their baptismal vocations? Does this mean Christianity is a failure?

nope, but it means that the Christians that failed did not follow the Spirit. In one breath you claim an extraordinary influence of the Spirit upon the one in the Papal office and then in the next breath you excuse Papal conduct on the basis that not all Christians submit to the Spirit. Once you claim such an extraordinary involvement on the part of the HS (for the Papal office), you are no longer entitled to use the ordinary Christian for comparison.

There have been indeed many singular instances of Popes who not only died for the faith [the first Popes were singularly targeted for execution and hence they had very short reigns] but are also remarkable and extraordinary men even by secular standards and admission.

yep…those would be the shiny links in the chain….but the chain’s strength is not determined by them, but by the many, many not so shiny links

Yes; and for all of that there has never been any period where the Popes perverted the faith or drowned the Church in doctrinal errors. That says more: it attests to a singular Divine Protection.

please keep in mind that from the Protestant perspective (the subject of the thread)Popes have indeed been involved in introducing error….papal infallibility springs to mind (not to mention quite a few other errors ). Further, it is easy to find a Pope who said things that conflict with current Catholic teaching. In those instances it seems that you would resort to claiming either a) he wasn’t speaking officially at the time; or b)what he really meant was something entirely different from the surface meaning (perhaps the Pope in question had but a partial understanding). Allow a liberal use of those two tools and any church’s hierarchy could be said to have never taught error.

No. It seems to me you expect them to be rather more than men.

No. Since I believe that they aren’t successors of Peter (as claimed), I expect that they will be merely good men. (In the past, b/c of how they were selected, they didn’t even have to be good men). It is you that claim that the office isn’t just a succession of mere men, but that it is a succession of men who each possess an extraordinary charism of the Holy Spirit. What I expect is that God will act consistently. In the scriptures an extraordinary charism is reserved for the righteous (with the unrighteous very, very rarely involved and then only for very,very short times). I expect that God would not reward (with a special charism) those who aren’t appointed with the mandated qualifications and/or who don’t rule as required.