Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kbwall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most Protestant pastors, and laity, believe they have been given the sole authority to decide for themselves what is true and what is false when it comes to the Bible. But, nowhere does the Bible give each and every individual such authority. Rather, the Bible is pretty clear that the church has such authority. The question, ultimately, for Protestants is whether or not they submit to the church in matters of faith and morals, or if they can decide for themselves regardless of what the church teaches. So many Protestants give lip service to the authority of the church, but when it comes right down to it, their churches have no binding authority over any individual when it comes to teaching on faith and morals.
This would not be true of confessional Lutheranism. In the LCMS, for example, the teaching of doctrine is not in the hands of the pastor or the laity, but in the Church, and our confessional document is the Book of Concord. For those who claim to be Lutheran and choose instead to interpret for themselves doctrine, they are, effectively, no longer Lutheran.

Jon
 
The visible church meets together under the various banners of religious organizations…but those organizations are not the Church, the Church uses those organizations, the mytical Body of Christ is made up of those who have been redeemed by grace thru faith in Christ…regardless of what organization they belong to.
Where does it say that in the Bible?

Either Jesus founded more than one church, Jesus founded an invisible and abstract church in which everyone who accepts Jesus belongs to this church, or He founded one Church, which is 2,000 years old, which is visible, holds that doctrine matters, and has the direct authority of Jesus Christ himself. We can both agree that Jesus did not found more than one Church. But I am glad you see the possibility of an invisible and universal (I substituted that word for “abstract”) Church in which everyone who follows (I substituted that word for “accepts”) Jesus belongs to his Church. This Church is 2000 years old and has the direct authority that Christ himself has granted it.
 
" The Bible certainly doesn’t say the 39 Articles are right."

Not all Anglicans do, either.

GKC
 
In the LCMS, for example, the teaching of doctrine is not in the hands of the pastor or the laity, but in the Church, and our confessional document is the Book of Concord.
It is my understanding that polity in the LCMS is congregationalist (i.e. every local church congregation is independent, ecclesiastically sovereign, and autonomous). So, who do you mean when you say “the Church”?

If an LCMS pastor is found to be teaching falsehood (as defined by LCMS), what happens? Is he removed from his teaching office? If so, how and by whom? the entire congregation? the congregation’s elders? the district president? the synod president?
 
Another Anglican here who is fond of Chesterton, Tolkien and some other Catholic writers. But I don’t give any human authority in the same way that the Pope claims it.

There are some Christian scholars I especially respect, particularly N.T Wright, but Wright himself admits he’s probably wrong in 25% of what he teaches, and he doesn’t know which 25%, else he’d change it!

My final authority is the Bible, and there is no other human I trust to interpret it for me. I’ll certainly be interested in the opinions of godly scholars about it, as I value their wisdom and learning, but the final decision on how I understand it is up to me, not to any magisterium. Scripture first, but Tradition, Reason and Experience (the Wesleyan Quadrilateral) all help me to understand it. So, prima scriptura, not sola scriptura, and definitely not solo scriptura.
 
Almost every Protestant I’ve talked to sees the position of the Pope as wrong, and that a human shouldn’t be in charge of a church, and that’s God’s position.

But every denomination is run by a man. For one thing, the pastors and preachers tell you their interpretation of the Bible. And somebody had to come with the core belief systems of that denomination. The Methodists and the Lutherans have their people.

Even churches that claim to be non-denominational have some human being at the head of it. Even if their core is that all is needed is faith in Jesus. OK, well somebody had to decide that. The Bible certainly didn’t come out and say that’s all that was required.

So what makes all these Protestant leaders better than the Pope?
I think at least for historically-minded Protestants along with Orthodox Christians, the papal claims for authority as they are enumerated today have never been part of the historical faith of the universal Church; they were always unique to and situated in the West. So in answer to your question, I think that the ideas and claims about the Pope come across as a kind of minority or sectarian viewpoint used to justify theological domination and are thus rejected. What a Christian fundamentalist would think about this topic, I’m really not sure.

There are no Protestant denominations (at least not mainstream ones) where the leaders have powers and claims to authority that are equivalent to those of the Pope, so to my view it’s an “apples and oranges” comparison.
 
=Erich;9737444]It is my understanding that polity in the LCMS is congregationalist (i.e. every local church congregation is independent, ecclesiastically sovereign, and autonomous). So, who do you mean when you say “the Church”?
And, to my knowledge, everyone of them links themselves in the constitution to the synod.
They also pledge themselves to the confessions, which is the point.
If an LCMS pastor is found to be teaching falsehood (as defined by LCMS), what happens? Is he removed from his teaching office? If so, how and by whom? the entire congregation? the congregation’s elders? the district president? the synod president?
Well, the first step is direction from the Board of Elders, followed by the circuit counselor and district president. Removal is a final step. The congegation can remove, but synod involvement is obviously the case. I am not a particularly strong supporter of congregational polity, but that was the point. The point is that, whether or not anyone is removed, to be a Lutheran one must accept Lutheran doctrine.

Jon
 
True, but they (Jesus and St. Paul) never called for celibacy to be mandatory either, even if it is a matter of discipline.
Precisely why Jesus said: For those can accept it. Jesus also never said marriage was mandatory.
 
Well, the first step is direction from the Board of Elders, followed by the circuit counselor and district president. Removal is a final step. The congegation can remove, but synod involvement is obviously the case. I am not a particularly strong supporter of congregational polity, but that was the point. The point is that, whether or not anyone is removed, to be a Lutheran one must accept Lutheran doctrine.
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?
 
Precisely why Jesus said: For those can accept it. Jesus also never said marriage was mandatory.
Yes, but celibacy and marriage is not the point of the objection. What Protestants object to is the Pope making something obligatory where scripture leaves it up to the individual. Why should the Pope be able to say that clergy must be celibate? And why should his particular opinion on celibacy be given greater weight than other men of God?
 
Yes, but celibacy and marriage is not the point of the objection. What Protestants object to is the Pope making something obligatory where scripture leaves it up to the individual. Why should the Pope be able to say that clergy must be celibate? And why should his particular opinion on celibacy be given greater weight than other men of God?
**
THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON PRIESTLY CELIBACY
Father William Saunders **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a continuation of last week’s column on priestly celibacy.)
Why does the Church mandate that priests be celibate? When did this rule come into existence?—A reader in Alexandria

Given the history of how mandatory clerical celibacy arose in the Roman Catholic Church (except in several of the Eastern Rites), we can examine the spirituality which undergirds the regulation.

The Second Vatican Council’s “Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests” (“Presbyterorum Ordinis,” 1965) asserted: “Perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven was recommended by Christ our Lord. It has been freely accepted and laudably observed by many Christians down through the centuries as well as a feature of priestly life. For it is at once a sign of pastoral charity and an incentive to it as well as being in a special way a source of spiritual fruitfulness in the world” (No. 16).

While recognizing that the nature of the priesthood does not demand celibacy, the Council affirmed ways celibacy is in harmony with the priesthood: Through it, a priest, identifying himself with Christ, dedicates his whole life to the service of his Lord and the Church. Celibacy enables the priest to focus entirely on building up the kingdom of God here and now. Priests can “cling to Christ with undivided hearts and dedicate themselves more freely to Him and through Him to the service of God and men” (No. 16). They are a sign in this world of the Church’s union with her spouse, Christ, and of the life in the world to come “in which the children of the resurrection shall neither be married nor take wives” (Lk 20:35-37).
Pope Paul VI highlighted these themes in his encyclical “Sacerdotalis Caelibatus” (1967), which was written at a time when some people questioned the need for mandatory celibacy. The Holy Father p(name removed by moderator)ointed three “significances” or senses to celibacy: the Christological, the ecclesiological and the eschatological. In the Christological sense, a priest must look to Christ as the ideal, eternal priest. This identification permeates his whole being. Just as Christ remained celibate and dedicated His life to the service of His Father and all people, a priest accepts celibacy and consecrates himself totally to serve the mission of the Lord. This total giving and commitment to Christ is a sign of the Kingdom present here and now.

In the ecclesiological sense, just as Christ was totally united to the Church, the priest through his celibacy bonds his life to the Church. He is better able to be a minister of the Word of God, listening to that Word, pondering its depth, living it and preaching it with whole-hearted conviction. He is the minister of the sacraments, and, especially through the Mass, acts in the person of Christ, offering himself totally to the Lord. Celibacy allows the priest greater freedom and flexibility in fulfilling his pastoral work: “(Celibacy) gives to the priest, even in the practical field, the maximum efficiency and the best disposition of mind, psychologically and affectively, for the continuous exercise of a perfect charity. This charity will permit him to spend himself wholly for the welfare of all, in a fuller and more concrete way” (“Sacerdotalis Caelibatus,” No. 32).

Finally, in the eschatalogical sense, the celibate life foreshadows a freedom we will have in heaven when perfectly united with God as His child.

The reflects these three “significances” in Canon 277, which mandates clerical celibacy: “Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore are obliged to observe celibacy, which is a special gift of God, by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and can more freely dedicate themselves to the services of God and mankind.”
Code:
Throughout the Church’s teaching on celibacy, three important dimensions must be kept in mind. First, celibacy involves freedom. A man when called to Holy Orders freely accepts the obligation of celibacy, after prayerful reflection and consideration. Having made that decision, celibacy does grant the bishop, priest or deacon the freedom to identify with Christ and to serve Him and the Church without reservation, condition or hesitation.

Secondly, celibacy involves sacrifice, and a sacrifice is an act of love. For instance, when a man and a woman marry, they make a sacrifice to live “in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health until death.” They sacrifice to live a faithful love, no longer dating others or giving into selfish pleasures. When they become father and mother, they sacrifice to support the raising of children. Decisions of love always entail sacrifice.

And so it is with the clergy. To be a priest means to make a sacrifice of oneself to Christ for the good of His Church. The priest sacrifices being married to a woman and having his own family to being “wedded” to Christ and His Church and serving their needs as “father.”

Finally, celibacy requires the grace of God to be lived. Repeatedly, celibacy is seen as a gift of the Holy Spirit. However, this gift is not just to keep one’s physical desires under control or to live as a bachelor; this gift is being able to say “yes” to our Lord each day and live His life.

Sadly, in our world, many people cannot appreciate the discipline of celibacy, whether for the clergy or anyone else. We live in a society where the media bombards us with uncontrolled sexual imagery. If some people cannot appreciate the values of virginity before marriage, fidelity in marriage, or sacrifice for children, they cannot begin to appreciate anyone, man or woman, who lives a celibate lifestyle in dedication to a vocation. As a Church, we should be thankful to the clergy and the men and women religious who have made the total sacrifice of themselves out of love to serve our Lord and the Church.

Fr. Saunders is president of the Notre Dame Institute and pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria.
 
Personally speaking, I think that having an authority which can claim to be guided infallibly by the Holy Spirit, using Jesus’ own words to back that claim up, is why the Church has lasted over 2000 years.

No infallible authority means that no church can ever be truly certain about what it teaches. Logic **demands **a deciding authority that everyone can trust.
 
Yes, but celibacy and marriage is not the point of the objection. What Protestants object to is the Pope making something obligatory where scripture leaves it up to the individual. Why should the Pope be able to say that clergy must be celibate? And why should his particular opinion on celibacy be given greater weight than other men of God?
You may benefit from reading posts 61 & 62 in this thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=706979&page=5

Just a thought. 🙂
 
Hierarchy is not what the Prostants have a problem with. It is what the Pope claims. To be the Vicar of Christ. The successor of Peter. That he is infalliable on Morals and Truths. They believe only the authority is the bible. Hence the term Sola Scriptura. In Western Christianity these objections both contributed to and are products of the Protestant Reformation. :eek:
And sadly, the never-ending division within the protestant sphere…
 
I don’t believe Protestants reject a human head for their orgaizations and ministries through which the Church operates and utilizes to spread the gospel. But none of the Protestant leaders claim infallibility and supreme head of the church on earth.
Well, the head’s of those protestant churches don’t claim to teach fallibly either. They claim to preach and teach the truth regarding the faith. As a former protestant, it occurred to me that that is all the CC believes and teaches regarding the Pope.
 
I recognize the authority of the Pope in his office as Bishop of Rome, having authority over his local diocese within the Roman Catholic Church. Being Anglican, the Pope has no authority over me or any part of my church. In addition, I would reject the Pope’s authority because of the many untruths that office upholds. Just a few quotes from the 39 Articles:

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.
Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God’s Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. (in part)
. . . Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. . .

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests.
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.
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?
 
It is my understanding that they have issues with the infallibility beliefs about the Pope more than him heading up the Church. They do not believe any of their leaders to be infallible.
Infallibility does not mean that the Bishop of Rome is infallible; infallibility simply translates to teaching doctrinal truth via the ineffable guidance of God. I know of no protestant church leaders that don’t make that same claim. 🤷 I have never met a protestant pastor/minister that claimed to teach fallibly; if he or she did then no one would follow him/her.
 
Er, what logic, exactly? I see only your conclusion there, not the reasoning behind it.
So, an authoritative Bible with no one to authoritatively interpret it? Do you trust the authority of the early ecumenical councils that were convoked at times when heretical teachings, based on scripture alone, were cropping up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top