Why do Protestants reject the Pope's authority?

[Mystophilus]

Because we have not been given a sufficiently cogent reason not to reject it, and, as has been mentioned in this thread, that goes not just for Protestants, but for everyone who is not Catholic.

You might as well ask why the rest of the world does not obey the US President.

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.

Systems of governance vary enormously between denominations, but a number of Protestant denominations, including Anglicanism, are confederations which work together by consensus, not hierarchies which operate under the edict of the highest ranks.

It is true that almost everyone but the Quakers has some form of authority structure, but, in each case, it is the authority structure which that group believed to be most appropriate, in much the same way that different countries have different governmental systems.

 

[Mystophilus]

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?

Anglican, like it says above. Therefore, women priests, no women priests, gay priests, no gay priests, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, communion, just a symbol, sacraments, no sacraments, evolution, six-day Creation, etc.

It is a lot more complicated than just having an authoritative Bible and/or Ecumenical Councils, I am afraid.

 

[Rawb]

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.

Well, I’m certainly not a protestant, but I do believe that the position the pope currently holds is wrong.

But every denomination is run by a man.

We don’t consider ourselves a denomination, but I think your intent would be the same. Holy Orthodoxy is not run by a man. In as humble a tone as I can muster I challenge anybody to find the “one man” who is “running” the Orthodox Church, especially in a similar role as that of the Pope of Rome. The only man at the head of our Church is Jesus Christ.

 

[Lochias]

Er, what logic, exactly? I see only your conclusion there, not the reasoning behind it.

The reasoning being that a religion that can’t state with authority that what it teaches is right and true, can never be fully trusted. Without the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, it’s just one man’s word against another’s, as to what Scripture actually states and does not state.

Without infallible teachings, you ultimately wind up with such caring and “Christian” churches as the WBC, who will state as vehemently as you that what they teach and believe comes from the ultimate authority of the Bible.

No-else but the RCC has the pedigree and history to back that claim up.

 

[joe370]

Anglican, like it says above. Therefore, women priests, no women priests, gay priests, no gay priests, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, communion, just a symbol, sacraments, no sacraments, evolution, six-day Creation, etc.

It is a lot more complicated than just having an authoritative Bible and/or Ecumenical Councils, I am afraid.

Well, you didn’t address my question but that’s OK. Who or what was given the authority, by Jesus, to impart truth in His name in times when doctrinal division rears its ugly head?

 

[Lochias]

Well, I’m certainly not a protestant, but I do believe that the position the pope currently holds is wrong.

The only man at the head of our Church is Jesus Christ.

As interpreted by whoever is in charge at your church. Unless you’re saying Jesus walked in last week to deliver a sermon in person?

 

[Rawb]

As interpreted by whoever is in charge at your church. Unless you’re saying Jesus walked in last week to deliver a sermon in person?

No, no, no. It was said that every denomination is run by a man. My priest does not run my church in that sense. He does not define our doctrines or come up with the “core belief system” of The Church.

Nobody who is against the position the Pope enjoys says that it is wrong to have someone deliver a sermon or teach, they say it is wrong for one man alone to be invested with the authority to define doctrine and move about bishops. It is wrong that there is one man who’s interpretation of The Faith supersedes all other sources of authority… The assertion in the first post, which is what I quoted, was that every church has such a man. I’d like to know who that man is in my Church.

 

[joe370]

No, no, no. It was said that every denomination is run by a man. My priest does not run my church in that sense. He does not define our doctrines or come up with the “core belief system” of The Church.

Who does…???

 

[Anna_Scott]

" The Bible certainly doesn’t say the 39 Articles are right."

Not all Anglicans do, either.

GKC

Agreed.

 

[Mystophilus]

Well, you didn’t address my question but that’s OK.

Sure I did: “It is a lot more complicated than just having an authoritative Bible and/or Ecumenical Councils, I am afraid.”

Who or what was given the authority, by Jesus, to impart truth in His name in times when doctrinal division rears its ugly head?

The Holy Spirit:
Joh 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Joh 16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Joh 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Joh 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

[Rawb]

Who does…???

 

[Mystophilus]

The reasoning being that a religion that can’t state with authority that what it teaches is right and true, can never be fully trusted. Without the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, it’s just one man’s word against another’s, as to what Scripture actually states and does not state.

Yes, but your unstated premiss is that a religion has to state with authority that what it teaches is right and true, but that premiss is not valid.

Some of us are quite happy, in faith as in science, with an understanding that our current position is the one that seems most credible.

 

[Lochias]

Yes, but your unstated premiss is that a religion has to state with authority that what it teaches is right and true, but that premiss is not valid.

Some of us are quite happy, in faith as in science, with an understanding that our current position is the one that seems most credible.

I’ll take “certainly” over “probably” anyday, myself. Without a defined, infallible and objective Truth, everything lapses sooner or later into what is most credible** subjected to one’s own personal preferences and beliefs**, to some extent or another.

Since Jesus gave us a Church, instead of simply hanging around to keep correcting us, I choose to go with what Jesus said up. Truly, Jesus Christ is the head of my Church, not my own subjective opinions or those of another man or woman.

 

[joe370]

joe370;9739244:

I don’t want to get sidetracked from the point, so I’ll only go so far as to say “no man.”

The assertion was every church has such a man, and I am asking to be shown who he is in my church. I assert he doesn’t exist. I am asking anyone who believes that “every denomination is run by a man” to point out to me who this man is in my church.

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

 

[Mystophilus]

I’ll take “certainly” over “probably” anyday, myself. Without a defined, infallible and objective Truth, everything lapses sooner or later into what is most credible subjected to one’s own personal preferences and beliefs, to some extent or another.

Unfortunately, those are your own personal preferences and beliefs at work right there, in your choice to believe that a given idea is certain and infallible.

I choose to go with what Jesus said.

So do an awful lot of other people, without coming to your conclusions about what he meant.

Please understand that I am not saying that you are wrong, merely pointing out that the logic of all of this is not as simple as it appears at first.

 

[Lochias]

Unfortunately, those are your own personal preferences and beliefs at work right there, in your choice to believe that a given idea is certain and infallible.

Nope. The proof is in the pudding, with no other Church possessing the pedigree and history that the RCC does. 2000+ years and counting. It’s not my idea any more than it’s the Pope’s. 'tis Christ’s.

So do an awful lot of other people, without coming to your conclusions about what he meant.

Please understand that I am not saying that you are wrong, merely pointing out that the logic of all of this is not as simple as it appears at first.

I disagree. The logic is there and quite simple. An awful lot of other people are going to do what they want to do regardless of who tells them what to do or not to do. My conclusion is the RCC conclusion, which is the most logical and forthright. I cringe at all the jumping backwards through hoops that other denominations often have to perform in order to make their ideas and preferences even remotely plausible.

 

[Publisher]

I will take that Holy Uncertainty any day over a man claiming to be infallible. For me, this uncertainty strips away all my dogmas and sets me squarely “naked” before God. My hope rests soley in Him and His astounding grace.

I do not know for certain if what I believe about Christ, atonement, resurrection, miracles, rites and rituals are true with unfailing certainty…but I don’t need to…the Search for Truth is much more satisfying and spiritually uplifting for me that putting my faith in the “infallible” statements of another human being who claims such authority. It places the responsibility squarely on my shoulders. I am not permitted BY my uncertainty to say …“Well, my church teaches such and such so I must obey and affirm it’s teachings.” "My priest has said such and thus I must obey because he is the representative of God…“in persona Christi”

I need to take full responsibility for my beliefs and spiritual formation. I cannot give away my God given right and responsibility to “work out my own salvation in fear and trembling”.

It is an Aweful and Mysterious Journey I am on seeking that City who’s Builder and Maker is God…I walk this Road in Search of that Mystery. What I “know” (gnosis) is thru the experience I have with God. I do look to others in community with Him to gain insight into these Mysteries of Faith, but the final decision on what I must believe and how I must live and respond to my beliefs by my actions and the way I order my life is my responsibility and mine alone.

No one other than me will stand before God and give account of my life. No one will speak for me in the Judgement…except the One who loves me most and knows me best…“Search my heart oh God…” And if I am found lacking, I turn to Him who “left the ninety and nine” to carry me Home…

I place myself in Good Hands, knowing that He wants the best for me and if I will Listen, He will be Present to teach me what I need to know Himself. He is the only Priest I need…He is the only Priest that I could trust with my Destiny.

I am on this Journey with all of you, and I seek inisght into your experiences with the Eternal, and sometimes your experiences enrich mine and hopefully my experiences enrich yours…but I will take Holy Aweful Uncertainty any day over “infallible” statements by another man in my search for Truth.

 

[Erich]

Anglican, like it says above. Therefore, women priests, no women priests, gay priests, no gay priests, transubstantiation, consubstantiation, communion, just a symbol, sacraments, no sacraments, evolution, six-day Creation, etc.

It is a lot more complicated than just having an authoritative Bible and/or Ecumenical Councils, I am afraid.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no? The answer, of course, is “no.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. From 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no? If “yes,” then why don’t Protestants demand conformity from all of the Protestant denominations that teach differing doctrines? Why don’t Anglicans demand conformity among high church, low church, and broad church? If “no,” well, the Bible says otherwise: Paul to Titus, speaking of those who are bishops, that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3) - no mention here that it’s okay to teach different doctrine, as long as it is “non-essential.” Conformity to doctrine is commanded in all of these instances by Paul. And we know that Paul is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, does indeed demand conformity to the doctrines He taught.

Which begs the question, 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?

 

[Radical]

I will take that Holy Uncertainty any day over a man claiming to be infallible. For me, this uncertainty strips away all my dogmas and sets me squarely “naked” before God. My hope rests soley in Him and His astounding grace.

I do not know for certain if what I believe about Christ, atonement, resurrection, miracles, rites and rituals are true with unfailing certainty…but I don’t need to…the Search for Truth is much more satisfying and spiritually uplifting for me that putting my faith in the “infallible” statements of another human being who claims such authority. It places the responsibility squarely on my shoulders. I am not permitted BY my uncertainty to say …“Well, my church teaches such and such so I must obey and affirm it’s teachings.” "My priest has said such and thus I must obey because he is the representative of God…“in persona Christi”

I need to take full responsibility for my beliefs and spiritual formation. I cannot give away my God given right and responsibility to “work out my own salvation in fear and trembling”.

It is an Aweful and Mysterious Journey I am on seeking that City who’s Builder and Maker is God…I walk this Road in Search of that Mystery. What I “know” (gnosis) is thru the experience I have with God. I do look to others in community with Him to gain insight into these Mysteries of Faith, but the final decision on what I must believe and how I must live and respond to my beliefs by my actions and the way I order my life is my responsibility and mine alone.

No one other than me will stand before God and give account of my life. No one will speak for me in the Judgement…except the One who loves me most and knows me best…“Search my heart oh God…” And if I am found lacking, I turn to Him who “left the ninety and nine” to carry me Home…

I place myself in Good Hands, knowing that He wants the best for me and if I will Listen, He will be Present to teach me what I need to know Himself. He is the only Priest I need…He is the only Priest that I could trust with my Destiny.

I am on this Journey with all of you, and I seek inisght into your experiences with the Eternal, and sometimes your experiences enrich mine and hopefully my experiences enrich yours…but I will take Holy Aweful Uncertainty any day over “infallible” statements by another man in my search for Truth.

brilliantly said…hope you don’t mind if I copy and paste it on occasion
(with credit given to you of course)

 

[Nicea325]

Itwin:

Yes, but celibacy and marriage is not the point of the objection.

Never said was the point of objection.

What Protestants object to is the Pope making something obligatory where scripture leaves it up to the individual

.

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?

Why should the Pope be able to say that clergy must be celibate?

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

And why should his particular opinion on celibacy be given greater weight than other men of God?

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