Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[Rawb]

Rawb;9739270:

No church as well, under the guidance of God, regarding truth?

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re saying here?

Nope. The proof is in the pudding, with no other Church possessing the pedigree and history that the RCC does. 2000+ years and counting.

Really? No other church? (But I’m just teasing and we don’t have to get off subject on this)

 

[jrtrent]

OK, but who has the authority to convince you and I that you are right to believe that the catholic church teaches erroneously regarding the aforementioned?

Another poster used the word credibility, and that better fits where I’m at than the word authority. I like the test offered by the Vincentian Canon:

“The famous threefold test of Catholic orthodoxy expressed by St. Vincent of Lérins (400-50) in his two memoranda (Comonitoria): “Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].” By this triple norm of diffusion, endurance, and universality, a Christian can distinguish religious truth from error.”

Georg Calixtus, a 17th century Lutheran theologian, argued for what he called the concensus of the first five centuries, that being a period in which Christians were by and large undivided. The canons of the Anglican church included this statement:

“See to it that you teach nothing. . .which you would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this self-same doctrine.”

Doctrinal innovations that appeared later only within the Roman Catholic Church, those not held by the Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Christian bodies, seem far less credible to me: priestly celibacy, various beliefs about the pope and Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc. I have no authority to refer you to to convince you that the Roman Catholic teachings are in error; I can only say that I don’t believe them, and that’s a reason I reject the Pope’s authority.

 

[Michelle9]

Another poster used the word credibility, and that better fits where I’m at than the word authority. I like the test offered by the Vincentian Canon:

“The famous threefold test of Catholic orthodoxy expressed by St. Vincent of Lérins (400-50) in his two memoranda (Comonitoria): “Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].” By this triple norm of diffusion, endurance, and universality, a Christian can distinguish religious truth from error.”

Georg Calixtus, a 17th century Lutheran theologian, argued for what he called the concensus of the first five centuries, that being a period in which Christians were by and large undivided. The canons of the Anglican church included this statement:

“See to it that you teach nothing. . .which you would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this self-same doctrine.”

Doctrinal innovations that appeared later only within the Roman Catholic Church, those not held by the Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Christian bodies, seem far less credible to me: priestly celibacy, various beliefs about the pope and Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc. I have no authority to refer you to to convince you that the Roman Catholic teachings are in error; I can only say that I don’t believe them, and that’s a reason I reject the Pope’s authority.

The thing is that Luther himself was once a Catholic priest who believed in priestly celibacy, Mary, and Purgatory. The Bible as we now know it wasn’t there until like the 300’s. So Christianity was based on an oral tradition.

 

[ltwin]

Itwin:

Never said was the point of objection.

You’re right, you didn’t. You just stated that Jesus never mandated marriage. OK. But once again the objection to papal authority is not about marriage or celibacy, so the fact that Jesus did not mandate marriage doesn’t really contribute to the discussion of why a Pope should be able to mandate priestly celibacy.

.

Give an example. Scripture gives an individual the authority to start their own church? I am still waiting to read where God authorized thousands of denominations?

An example is priestly celibacy. Paul says that for those who can be celibate, it is a good thing. But the New Testament is clear that celibacy was not required for deacons and elders as can be seen by the list of requirements that frequently mention, “he should be the husband of one wife.”

No, the church belongs to Jesus. People following Jesus have used a number of means and organizations to spread the gospel.

And why should any mere man be able to say he or she will break and divide Christ Church?

Until the Catholic Church can get its ducks in a row regarding its split with the Orthodox Churches, I don’t think the Catholic Church has any credibility to tell Protestants that we’re breaking apart the body of Christ. From what I understand, the two churches basically believe the same exact things, and yet you guys still can’t come together. What’s up with that?

EXACTLY! Why should any mere man’s opinion on starting his own church be given greater weight than the men of God?

Well, it comes down to whether the men of God are in obvious error. If so, then those other men of God who realize the man of God is in error cannot follow his “infallible” doctrinal pronouncements.

 

[Nicea325]

jrtrent:

Doctrinal innovations that appeared later only within the Roman Catholic Church, those not held by the Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Christian bodies, seem far less credible to me:

Oh much like the innovations of the Anglican Church centuries later and other Christian bodies?

priestly celibacy, various beliefs about the pope and Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc.

Priestly celibacy is NOT a doctrine. Only goes to show how much you do not know.

I have no authority to refer you to to convince you that the Roman Catholic teachings are in error;

In error? Yet you follow some man-made church invented centuries later? Maybe I’ll try to convince you of the one error of your man-made church:

Where did God authorize the Anglican Church? Chapter and verse…please

I can only say that I don’t believe them, and that’s a reason I reject the Pope’s authority.

And no one cares that you don’t believe them, because many did not believe in Jesus-did that stop Him from going on?

 

[Erich]

Doctrinal innovations that appeared later only within the Roman Catholic Church, those not held by the Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Christian bodies, seem far less credible to me: priestly celibacy, various beliefs about the pope and Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc. I have no authority to refer you to to convince you that the Roman Catholic teachings are in error; I can only say that I don’t believe them, and that’s a reason I reject the Pope’s authority.

The thing is that Luther himself was once a Catholic priest who believed in priestly celibacy, Mary, and Purgatory. The Bible as we now know it wasn’t there until like the 300’s. So Christianity was based on an oral tradition.

As noted by others, the practice of priestly celibacy is based on Christ’s example and on the writings of St. Paul – so this practice (i.e. not dogma) is hardly “in error.” Orthodox priests who are married, were married prior to their ordination – as for Orthodox as well as Catholics, Holy Orders are an impediment to marriage. But, not all Orthodox priests are married – Orthodox bishops are chosen from among those who are celibate.

Any other Catholic belief about the pope, Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc. are rooted in Apostolic teaching (of which Scripture is but one component), but to discuss them here would be out of scope for this thread.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Itwin:

Never said was the point of objection.

You’re right, you didn’t. You just stated that Jesus never mandated marriage. OK. But once again the objection to papal authority is not about marriage or celibacy, so the fact that Jesus did not mandate marriage doesn’t really contribute to the discussion of why a Pope should be able to mandate priestly celibacy.

.
Again,when and where did I say these were reasons for objection of the papacy? And it does not contribute to discussion either when non-Catholics as yourself also know very little about Catholicism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Give an example. Scripture gives an individual the authority to start their own church? I am still waiting to read where God authorized thousands of denominations?

An example is priestly celibacy. Paul says that for those who can be celibate, it is a good thing. But the New Testament is clear that celibacy was not required for deacons and elders as can be seen by the list of requirements that frequently mention, “he should be the husband of one wife.”

And the verse you cited is a mandate for deacons and elders to be married. Seriously?

No, the church belongs to Jesus. People following Jesus have used a number of means and organizations to spread the gospel.

And yet you still have not answered: Where did God authorize thousands of denominations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And why should any mere man be able to say he or she will break and divide Christ Church?

Until the Catholic Church can get its ducks in a row regarding its split with the Orthodox Churches, I don’t think the Catholic Church has any credibility to tell Protestants that we’re breaking apart the body of Christ.

Denial is a hard habit to break-eh? And do you honestly believe Protestants have unified Christ Body? Time to wake up to reality.

From what I understand, the two churches basically believe the same exact things, and yet you guys still can’t come together. What’s up with that?

Ahhhh…there is more involved. And yet Protestanism claims they are share in the same doctrines: Trinity,Incarnation and yrt cannot stop dividing. What is up with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
EXACTLY! Why should any mere man’s opinion on starting his own church be given greater weight than the men of God?

Well, it comes down to whether the men of God are in obvious error. If so, then those other men of God who realize the man of God is in error cannot follow his “infallible” doctrinal pronouncements.

Which evidently means thousands of denominations are in error too-eh?

 

[jrtrent]

And no one cares that you don’t believe them. . .

Nicea325, you seem to be highly defensive and antagonistic in your responses. I’ve tried to answer the OP’s question as to why Protestants reject the Pope’s authority, but am only able to answer from my own background and perspective. I don’t expect you or anyone else to care about what I do or don’t believe, nor am I trying to proselytize others to Anglicanism; I’m simply trying to answer a question on a public forum for non-Catholic religions.

As Itwin mentioned, the schism between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches makes anyone’s claim to be the one, true church founded by Jesus Christ a little hard to swallow. I hitched my horse to the Anglican post after extended attendance, reading, and church instruction at all three. I respect your decision to be Roman Catholic, but it’s not a decision that I could make in good conscience for myself.

 

[JonNC]

Isn’t this a bit like the sheep choosing who will be their shepherd? Is said pastor removed from the clergy roster, or just from being the pastor of his current congregation?

Not at all. Decisions about doctrine are made by the synod, via the confessions. The synod would be involved. Removal from the roster is a synod decision, not a local congregation. Additionally, all clergy come from the synod. My parish, for exampe could not choose a pastor not ordained by within the synod. All pastors are trained and approved by the synod. I can’t be the pastor (can’t administer the sacraments or publicly preach) because I am not ordained.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=jrtrent;9741316]Nicea325, you seem to be highly defensive and antagonistic in your responses. I’ve tried to answer the OP’s question as to why Protestants reject the Pope’s authority, but am only able to answer from my own background and perspective. I don’t expect you or anyone else to care about what I do or don’t believe, nor am I trying to proselytize others to Anglicanism; I’m simply trying to answer a question on a public forum for non-Catholic religions.

I will say my experience with Nicea has always been one of good charity between us.

As Itwin mentioned, the schism between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches makes anyone’s claim to be the one, true church founded by Jesus Christ a little hard to swallow. I hitched my horse to the Anglican post after extended attendance, reading, and church instruction at all three. I respect your decision to be Roman Catholic, but it’s not a decision that I could make in good conscience for myself.

Ad the bolded is the distinct question involved redarding the pope’s jurisdiction and those of us who are, particluarly Lutheran and Anglican: were the EO and the CC to come to resolution regarding this issue, would we then be willing to accept the authority of the again undivided Church, regardless how configured. My answer is yes. Other answers may vary.
As it currently stands, however, you are right: the question of authority is indeed in question.

Jon

 

[pablope]

until the catholic church can get its ducks in a row regarding its split with the orthodox churches, i don’t think the catholic church has any credibility to tell protestants that we’re breaking apart the body of christ. From what i understand, the two churches basically believe the same exact things, and yet you guys still can’t come together. What’s up with that?
.

pride.

 

[JonNC]

pride.

If you will, please expand on this.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Doctrinal innovations that appeared later only within the Roman Catholic Church, those not held by the Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Christian bodies, seem far less credible to me: priestly celibacy, various beliefs about the pope and Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc. I have no authority to refer you to to convince you that the Roman Catholic teachings are in error; I can only say that I don’t believe them, and that’s a reason I reject the Pope’s authority.

So, there is no longer a definitive authority (as there was early on) to resolve doctrinal differences when it comes to what you call doctrinal innovations that appeared later on within the Catholic Church?

Vincentian Canon:

This kind of authority would be useful but in the end, it will, no doubt, not resolve doctrinal differences within Christendom today:

“The famous threefold test of Catholic orthodoxy expressed by St. Vincent of Lérins (400-50) in his two memoranda (Comonitoria): “Care must especially be had that that be held which was believed everywhere [ubique], always [semper], and by all [ab omnibus].” By this triple norm of diffusion, endurance, and universality, a Christian can distinguish religious truth from error.”

The consensus among protestants and Anglicans seems to be:

One church founded by Jesus, in the world today no longer is guided by God, regarding revealed doctrinal truth?

 

[pablope]

and yet you guys still can’t come together. What’s up with that?

Pride.

If you will, please expand on this.

Jon

Sure Jon.

Pride…refusal to let go because of the possible consequences…fear (maybe the right word).

Fear of accepting the authority of the bishop of Rome?

Fear of losing one’s own authority?

Refusal to let go of the present situation?

 

[JonNC]

So, there is no longer a definitive authority (as there was early on) to resolve doctrinal differences when it comes to what you call doctrinal innovations that appeared later on within the Catholic Church?

Hi Joe,

Yes. A general council, as was the rule in the early Church.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,

Yes. A general council, as was the rule in the early Church.

Jon

Hey Jon. A general council for all of Christendom? The consensus among protestants seems to be:

One church founded by Jesus (via general council) in the world today, no longer is guided by God, regarding revealed doctrinal truth, such as the Eucharist or Baptism.

 

[jrtrent]

So, there is no longer a definitive authority (as there was early on) to resolve doctrinal differences when it comes to what you call doctrinal innovations that appeared later on within the Catholic Church?

I don’t know of one. The Orthodox recognize seven ecumenical councils; Anglicans give priority to the first four of those. Roman Catholics have twenty-one councils they see as authoritative. Since the fifth century, or maybe a bit later, what do we have that has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all”?

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon. A general council for all of Christendom? The consensus among protestants seems to be:

One church founded by Jesus (via general council) in the world today, no longer is guided by God, regarding revealed doctrinal truth, such as the Eucharist or Baptism.

Forget protestants for a moment.

Jon

 

[joe370]

I don’t know of one. The Orthodox recognize seven ecumenical councils; Anglicans give priority to the first four of those. Roman Catholics have twenty-one councils they see as authoritative. Since the fifth century, or maybe a bit later, what do we have that has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all”?

Well, maybe Jesus continues to guide His one church into all truth in spite of the 11th century east-west schism, the break between the Catholic church and the Anglican church, and the eventual 16th century protestant reformation. Seems rather plausible and biblical. Of course it is up to each and every Christian to identify said church, if, in the end, that is what they believe. The alternative seems to be:

Doctrinal truth regarding those disparate teachings, such as the Eucharist and Baptism, just to name a few, are no longer knowable.

 

[joe370]

Forget protestants for a moment.

Jon

OK…